Obeying Amir (Leader) is obeying prophet (peace be upon him). At the end of the day, if Biblical figures refute the argument, then you really have no way out. And where is the Holy Ghost in John 10:30? In fact, Br. In order to prove the missionaries “dance from pillars to post” on certain occasions picking the straw man Satanic Verses (1, 2) and on other claiming that he, peace be upon him, copied it from the Jews: “It is well known, except perhaps to Mr. No matter how much the prudes of Christianity try to prove themselves Semitic; they have diverted to the lines of the pagans to abuse that Allah begot a son. A particular translator of Qur’an “inserted (it) into the English text”. Anthony Chute and Ray Van Neste. We have yet again proved that the “Son of God” title which Anthony Rogers gleaned from John 20:30-31 is metaphoric, figurative in nature, however, we complained about the earthly and literal presentation of the same “son-father” relationship – two totally different connotations; yet Anthony Rogers tried to blend them together in order to deceptively argue that we endorsed the “father-son relationship” of John 17:3 while disregarding the “father-son relationship” of John 3:16. Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer are only to name a few of them: “I and my Father are one – The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. If the Greek “Monogenh” or “Monogenes” is something which means “one of a type” then why did the English translators translated it with the filth “Begotten”? Both Jesus (peace be upon him) and father love the flock and therefore they are one or expressly “their love to the sheep is ONE”. the likeness of Jesus) the likeness of the creation of Jesus (with Allah) without a father (is as the likeness of Adam. He claimed prophet hood. Has not one God created us?”(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV). a) Any person who imposes himself on a young woman may have marriage imposed on him, with the right of later getting a divorce taken away from him. Mind you once again that John 20:30-31 might imply “special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”, however, John 3:16 apparently does not show any “…transcendent father-son relationship”. According this ‘profound exegete’ of Qur’an, Surah 3:59 builds conjecture in Qur’an because: “… since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”. Bold and Italics emphasize ours). Jesus, peace be upon him, states that he is the shepherd of his flock and therefore he would provide them all the security they need, in other words, because Jesus’ (peace be upon him) sheep follow him (verse 27), “…they shall never perish” (verse 28) and therefore no man would be able to pluck them (his sheep) out of his hand. Their affirmation that they saw Jesus (peace be upon him) only, indirectly meant that they saw none beside. Surely, for the essence of creation, Jesus (peace be upon him) lacked way behind God as a true prophet and servant; not a Co – Creator. Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on Qur’an’s many god and lords and the analysis of alleged deification of creatures within Islamic texts. Bold and italics emphasize ours). Ask me ever so much dowry and gift, and I will give according to what you say to me; but give me the young woman as a wife.” But the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father, and spoke deceitfully, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (King James (1611) Bible. As a matter of fact Qur’an welcomes criticism (Qur’an 4:82). To compound Rogers case we would like to enquire, firstly, to which higher authority would Jesus (peace be upon him) beseech for men and secondly, why would he at all plead at all to his higher authority is not he co – equal with father? The Qur’an came as yardstick to judge between the right and the wrong. “…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “sole” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Thirdly, I thank Mr. Anthony Rogers for citing the above verses (in his argument) because this provides me all the more reasons why I must read Qur’an. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. “…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “only” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! Christianity’s famous commentator Matthew Henry comments that whosoever controverts the witness of son denies the testimony and “seal” of the father upon Jesus (peace be upon him): “He that opposes Christ denies the witness and testimony of the Father, and the seal that HE hath given to his Son; for him hath God the Father sealed, Joh_6:27.And he that denies the witness and testimony of the Father, concerning Jesus Christ denies that God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ,…”(Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours). And this is not just the end since the so called New Testament also contains similar verses which only points to Fatherhood in a “spiritual” and metaphorical sense. Sami with the ability to produce such arguments that make men like Anthony aide in Christians accepting Islam. Bold and Italics emphasize ours). For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Do they care? Anonymous…an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him” in that a denial of “Son” is tantamount to denial of “Father” because it is through the “Son” that the “Father” was made known: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father – That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. )” and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty. An Example of Major Theological Corruption in the Bible: The Begotten God? (The Holy Qur’an, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours), “They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a SON!”. Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours). Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Luther’s doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper led to the characteristically Lutheran view of the communicatio idiomatum, to the effect “that each of Christ’s natures permeates the other (perichoresis), and that His humanity participates in the attributes of His divinity.” It is held that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ at the time of the incarnation. Let us analyze this remark part by part so that we do justice to his ‘intellectual’ remarks.We would first analyze the first piece of argument in the above cited remark which is: “Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”. Observe that he would not reply that there is some kind of “close association” between SERVANT Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) rather he would only proclaim that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is His Messenger. Last night I posted an article indicating that most Christian polemicists do not care about their theology, using their very own words. Unfortunately for him, he ended up declaring the beliefs of Shamoun and Slick to be heretical. This led to the revelation that the beliefs of his Christian apologist friends were heretical. Rogers’ interpretational perversion from “obedience” to “absolute submission” can be further explained by the fact that The Holy Qur’an enjoined obedience or the so called “absolute submission” to the followers of earlier prophets as well: “We sent not an Apostle but to be obeyed in accordance with the will of Allah. One does not necessarily has to abuse others deity as Idol especially when the Qur’an and Hadith are strictly against “Idol” worship (! “Are” is in the masculine gender – “we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter – “one thing.” PERHAPS “ONE INTEREST” EXPRESSES,as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. ], He attacked: “Second, though translated Jesus, the Arabic text calls Him ‘Isa, which is not correct. Sami has been saying all along. That being the case let us analyze his claim but first let us read what he exactly has to say: “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.”  Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”. Secondly, it seems unnecessary and superfluous that Allah – Almighty intervenes with a verse every time an Ansar and a Qureishite or a Muslim and Jew etc quibbled over mundane matters so much so that it find its place in the final word of Allah (SWT) – The Holy Qur’an. We provide yet another perspective of response to Rogers’ argument of obeying Allah (SWT) and His messenger (peace be upon him). We would consider even this later in this paper but for time being we note that he has not responded directly and distinctively to our refutation of his “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” argument.  The interesting point here is the Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew word “Abba” used in the text. However, Rogers have seemed to have lost the track somewhere in his dismay of falling short of substantial arguments thus he had to recourse to new arguments of Jesus (peace be upon him) potentate of doing that entire father can do and all judgment given into his (peace be upon him) hands. Do they care that none of their Christologies are compatible, that they each differ about the very nature of God and the means of salvation in Christianity? I am honestly appalled by his actions. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (King James (1611), John 17:21-22, Capital and Bold emphasize ours), “I pray that they may all be one. Mark that yet again the Hebrew word “ILDTH” is used and we would soon know what it means when we will read Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear. About. Affronts to an ambassador are justly resented by the prince that sends him. Christians are still not stable with the name of the false deity they worship! When Evangandists try to transmute into Sheikhs they only expose their ignorance of Islamic theology which can yet be proved through the remark which Rogers made: “Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. After having duly embarrassed himself by having a rabid rant over a typo and declaring his friends heretics, he quickly left the conversation. In a nut shell, Allah (SWT) obviated all worldly and/or humanistic relationships to His sublime Self: “And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: HE HAS TAKEN NEITHER A WIFE NOR A SON” (The Holy Qur’an 72:3, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours), “Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah though Allah did create the Jinns; andTHEY FALSELY HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ATTRIBUTE TO HIM SONS and daughters. In the first place, such an interpretation would transfigure the ghost god of Christianity to transfigure like a marriage “TENT” or “CANOPY”. Because otherwise his argument would fall apart. This is contrary to Tawhid, according to Islamic authorities; this is shirk, pure and simple. Dr. Lightfoot’s explanation is supported by Anthony Opisso. It is evident why Adam was created in a special way, for there was no one else for him to be born to. According to him because the Qur’an is also filled with “filthy invectives” towards Mohammad, peace be upon him, so it should not be read. Bold and Italics emphasize ours). , another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from = shadow.Thus, “to spread one’s cloak <(tallith)> over a woman” means to cohabit with her <(Kiddushin> 18b, see also .” (Source). Therefore, the common usage of “Abba” or Father by Paul and (allegedly) by Jesus (peace be upon him) settles the matter that “Father” as used in Bible (at least in most cases) is “spiritual” and figurative in nature and thus Muslims have all the warrant to call their Christian brethren towards total monotheism through appeal to John 17:3 even if the text speaks of “Father”. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. She told police “she was driving and out of no where God told her that he would take it from here and she let go of the wheel and let him take it.” She’s now facing several charges. Both the arguments only backfire against this ignorant apologist because (a) when Muslims “repeatedly” and “intensely” enchant their “Shahada” they never “associate Muhammad too closely with Allah” (peace be upon him). In his words, so be it! I merely referenced the article and asked Rogers if he agreed with Slick’s belief. And therefore, it is fallacious to interpret that “absolute submission is due to Muhammad in addition to God”. Quite so.). And now I say that there would be just no room for conjecture if one just knew what is called “Asbab-al-Nuzul” or the science of revelation of verses. He said: “Having said that Muslims have no problem using the word “father” for God in a metaphorical sense, which we just saw is patently false, at least according to the Qur’an and the systematic understanding of Tawhid that has been hammered out by Muslim authorities, Anonymous goes on to say: However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. The Quran states that Prophet `Esa said, An innocent animal would die as the condemned sinner’s substitute”, “The person placing his or her hand on the head of a sacrifice symbolized thetransfer of sin to the flawless creature. 1:12; 11:52), he uses a different Greek word altogether (Gr. If this is the kind of fatherhood that Muslims anathematize, then it is proof positive that my first and second contention are true: 1) John 17:3, in context, does not teach any kind of Islamic unitarianism, all specious, undefined, unproven distinctions between Islam and Tawhid notwithstanding, and 2) it teaches that Jesus is the divine Son of God. We have to call the careful blend and bluff from literal “father-son” relationship of John 3:16 to “special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship” as Anthony tried to put forth. Yet guess who believes in and defends Christianity using a doctrine that Anthony considers to be…..”contradicting orthodoxy”? All of this is the Christian answer, but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”. (Side remark:- Many emotional Christian apologists and Church ministers claim that because Jesus (peace be upon him) gave life to the dead thus he got to be God – Almighty (God forbid), however, little that they consider Henry’s comments who clearly explains that it would be God – Almighty who would “direct”/“communicate”Jesus (peace be upon him) into executing greater works, that of animating dead bodies. Christians should state what are they trying to emphasize when they testify that Christ is “BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE”. The effect in which angels, books etc are “encapsulated” in belief can be anything but their divinity. By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that GOD WOULD ENTER INTO A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, CAUSING HER TO CONCEIVE HIS SON IN HER WOMB, FOR “TO LAY ONE’S POWER <(RESHUTH)> OVER A WOMAN”<(TARGUM TO DT> 21:4 WAS A EUPHEMISM FOR “TO HAVE A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER.” LIKEWISE “TO OVERSHADOW”(LK 1:35) Y SPREADING THE “WING” OR “CLOAK” OVER A WOMAN WAS ANOTHEREUPHEMISM FOR MARITAL RELATIONS.” (Source), “Dr. However, so was the case with numerous other prophets of Allah (SWT). By bringing new arguments of all judgments in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) handsetc Rogers further compounds his problems because in order to support his originalargument of conjoining Jesus (peace be upon him) and God of John 17:3 he was obliged to bring in the help of John 5:23, however, when John 5:23 was scrutinized Rogers was forced to ambulance in John 5:19-22 and “5:23ff.”; all this prove the flimsy nature of the so called biblical arguments to prove the deity of servant Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) where no verse stands a scrutiny on its own, even worst, every supportive verse brought in fails more miserably, thereby demolishing every argument until we reach John 17:3. Sami’s argument and admits that the punishment for raping an unbetrothed virgin is to be married to the rapists victim. Irrigate (your garden) first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor.) You can only speak to David about Islam! It tantamount to the same earthily usage of the term begotten when a Father begets a child, S/he is “Flesh of Flesh”, “Blood of Blood” etc. Anonymous cannot claim to believe in “the messiahship of the Son”, and, therefore, “is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him.”” (Italics emphasize ours). For according to leading commentators “seal” as designated to Jesus (peace be upon him) meant either as “ambassador”, “intercessor” etc. As Allah-Almighty willed and Adam was created so was the case of Jesus -the mortal, peace be upon them. the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…)”. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Pickthall), “The Christ, son of Mary, WAS BUT AN APOSTLE: all [other] apostles had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. has sent Condoleezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. To the above reasoning Rogers replied back with three outlandish rationales: “First, in the name of following the context Mr. We would observe how Rogers tries to canvass his polytheism between the dexterity of the words “Only” and “Alone”. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he thatacknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (Italics emphasize ours). sole or single; by implication, mere:–alone, only, by themselves”. (Sunan of Abu – Dawood, Hadith Number 594, Al – Alim CD-Rom version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours). Yet, when it comes to his very own Christian friends like Sam and Wood, he fails to correct them. Answer: Rogers’ claim is exactly the opposite of what Arabic grammar entails. Don’t you dare try to discuss Christian theology, especially salvation and the nature of God, you can only discuss Islam! We may assume that they called God as Father because of the transcendent paternal care which He provides similar to that which a human father provides, same goes with protection, providence, sustenance, love etc. Is he correct in his reasoning? The argument goes like this: Therefore, Jesus is not the only true God. Join Facebook to connect with Anthony Rogers and others you may know. Conversely, we find no proofs in the entire Bible where such a dependency is liable on father with respect to Jesus (peace be upon him). Whether my analysis of Paul being incorrect or bona fide is different all together; it is debatable if wished. “Tallith” is derived from “Tellal” which means “SHADOW”. However, a closer look at the Torah and the writings of the prophets shows that that there is a clear … “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borneunto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. A whole lifetime before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?”, (The Holy Qur’an, 10:15-16, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-ROM version. Anonymous does not believe in “the Son”; indeed, he rejects such a notion as a blasphemous misconception that needs to be “cleaned”. Basing the arguments on unfounded, unsupported claims Anthony Rogers moves forward to provide us three points – points which according to him would establish that Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Matt Slick who operates CARM and is often featured alongside Sam and Wood on ABN/ Trinity TV also promotes and believes in this doctrine: Click this link. So far we have realized that the arguments that Jesus (peace be upon him) being sent by “His Father”, “equality of potency with His Father” and “Judgment” prowess does not work to establish any kind of “close association” with father.