In this article we will be responding to the ongoing discussion between Sami Zaatari of Muslim Answers and Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam on the topic:
Is The Angel of the Lord God?
We suggest that the readers first read through Zaatari’s article: http://muslim-responses.com/Angel_of_the_Lord/Angel_of_the_Lord_
Then Shamoun’s response: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/jesus_angel_of_yahweh.htm
And follow that up with reading Zaatari’s rebuttal: http://muslim-responses.com/Angel_of_God/Angel_of_God_
Since this will help keep our reply shorter than if we were simply to post everything that Zaatari quotes in his recent article.
Here is Zaatari’s reply to Shamoun’s point that the Angel of God in Matthew 1:20-21 IS NOT the same Divine Angel mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures
It seems the missionary is
not aware of how bad his response is. Let us quote the context of Matthew
chapter 1; in fact I will quote the ENTIRE chapter:
After citing the entire chapter Zaatari than says:
Shamoun's weak response is that
the angel of the Lord which is mentioned in Matthew 1 is simply referring to
any other angel, but not THE actual angel of the Lord that we often find in the
Old Testament!
Tell us Shamoun where in this context does it mention any of what you say? You
see folks Shamoun is making EMTPY [sic] CLAIMS, he has no proof that the
angel of the Lord that is mentioned here refers to any other angel that God
sends, he is assuming this and has nothing to back his claim up.
Actually Mr. Zaatari should never rest his argument solely upon the English
translation of the Bible because it is going to backfire in a very damaging way
against him. Zaatari is using the KJV version of the Bible and demanding that
Shamoun proves to the general audience that the context actually supports his
position. The key scripture in this passage would be Matthew 1:20 which the KJV
renders as:
But while he thought on these things, behold, THE angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:20
Zaatari believes this proves that this is "THE ANGEL OF THE LORD"
instead of just "an angel of the Lord" and that Shamoun is mistaken
in his conclusion. The problem for Zaatari is that the Greek text here does not
contain the definite article before the word angel, as the late great NT Greek
Grammarian AT Robertson explains:
An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream (aggeloß kuriou kat onar epanh autwi). This expression (aggeloß kuriou) is without the article in the New Testament except when, as in Deuteronomy 1:24, there is reference to the angel previously mentioned. Sometimes in the Old Testament Jehovah Himself is represented by this phrase. Surely Joseph needed God's help if ever man did. If Jesus was really God's Son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. (Source)
Now notice how modern English versions of the
Bible render Matthew 1:20:
… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream… NASB
… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream… ESV
… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream… NIV
… an angel of [the] Lord appeared to him in a dream… Darby
… a messenger of the Lord in a dream… Young’s Literal Translation
… an angel from the Lord came to him in a dream… CEV
… an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream… NCV
… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said… TNIV
It also gets worse for Zaatari because the New King James Version, which is an updated version of the KJV, translates it the same way as the above versions:
… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…
This in itself sufficiently makes Zaatari’s argument obsolete since the passage speaks of AN angel of the Lord, not THE angel of the Lord. Only someone relying on incorrect information would arrive at Zaatari’s conclusion.
There is further evidence that the angel of Matthew 1:20 isn’t the OT Angel of the Lord since the former never identifies himself as God, nor is worshiped as God, whereas the latter is often called and even worshiped as God.
In light of the foregoing I must say that if this is the type of “answer” Zaatari presents on behalf of Islam then he should retire from debating. After all, it took me less than 2 minutes to recognize this error and refute it.
Zaatari tries to tackle Shamoun’s explanation and clarification of the concept of agency by repeating his initial point that the Jews historically considered or regarded a person’s agent as the person himself.
I love it when Zaatari appeals to Jewish history to try to authenticate
Islam since it’s a slippery slope that ultimately discredits his argument. Both
the Holy Bible and the Quran mention the story of
Moses and the burning bush. According to the Quran the One who spoke to Moses
from the bush was God himself:
Has the story of Moses Reached
Thee? BEHOLD HE SAW A FIRE: So he said to his family, "Tarry ye: I
perceive a fire; perhaps I can Bring you some burning brand Therefrom, or find
some guidance At the fire." But when he came to the fire, a voice Was
heard: "O Moses" "VERILY I AM THY LORD! Therefore (in My
presence) Put off thy shoes: thou art In the sacred valley Tuwa. "I
have chosen thee: Listen, then, to the inspiration (Sent to thee). "VERILY,
I AM GOD: There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), And establish
regular prayer For celebrating My praise. Verily the hour is coming- My
design is to keep it Hidden- for every soul To its reward By the measure of its
endeavor. Therefore let not such as Believe not therein But follow their own
Lusts, divert thee therefrom, Lest thou perish!" "And what is that in
thy right hand, O Moses?" He said, "It is My rod: on it I lean; with
it I beat down fodder For my flocks; and In it I find Have Other uses." (God)
said, "Throw it, O Moses!" H e threw it, and behold it was a
snake Active in motion. (God) said "Seize it And fear not: We shall
return it at once To its former condition... Now draw thy hand Close to thy
side: It shall come forth white (And shining), without harm (or stain),- As a
another Sign,- In order that we may show thee (Two) of our Greater Signs. Go
thou to Pharaoh For he has indeed Transgressed all bounds." S. 20:9-24
Behold! Moses said to his family
"I perceive A fire; soon will I bring you From there some information, Or
I will Bring you A burning brand to light our fuel That ye may Warm
yourselves." But when he came To the (Fire), a voice Was heard:
"Blessed are those In the Fire and those around: AND GLORY TO GOD, THE
LORD OF THE WORLDS. "O Moses! VERILY I AM GOD, THE EXALTED IN
MIGHT, THE WISE!... "Now do throw thy rod!" But when he saw it
Moving (of its own accord) As if it had been a snake, He turned back in
Retreat, And retraced not his steps: "O Moses!" (it was said),
"Fear not: truly, in My presence, Those called as apostles Have no fear,-
But if Any have done wrong And have thereafter substituted Good to take the
place of the evil, Truly, I am Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. "Now
put thy hand into Thy bosom, and it will Come forth white without stain (Or
harm): (These are) among The nine Signs (thou wilt take) To Pharaoh and his
people: For they are A people Rebellious in transgression." But when Our
Signs came To them, that should opened their eyes, they said: "This is
Sorcery manifest!" And they rejected those Signs In iniquity and
arrogance, Though their Souls were convinced Thereof: so see what was The end
of those Who acted corruptly. S. 27:7-14
Now when Moses had fulfilled The
term, and was traveling With his family, he perceived A fire in the direction
of
The Quran also says that God or Allah spoke to Moses
directly:
Of some messengers We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- AND TO MOSES ALLAH SPOKE DIRECT;- S. 4:164
But according the Holy Bible it was the ANGEL OF YAHWEH WHO APPEARED TO AND SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH MOSES:
“And THE ANGEL OF THE LORD
appeared unto him IN A FLAME OF FIRE OUT OF THE MIDST OF A BUSH: and he
looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush
is not burnt. And when THE LORD saw that he turned aside to see, GOD CALLED
UNTO HIM OUT OF THE MIDST OF THE BUSH, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said,
Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy
feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I
AM THE GOD OF THY FATHER, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF
JACOB. And Moses hid his face; for HE WAS AFRAID TO LOOK UPON GOD.”
Exodus 3:1-6
“After forty years had passed, AN ANGEL appeared to
Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near
Not only do these passages say that it was the Angel who
appeared, the text from Exodus calls the Angel God and quotes the Angel as
identifying himself as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Passages such as these have led many Biblical scholars to conclude that the Angel is both God and distinct from God:
ANGEL OF THE LORD-An oft-recurring phrase in the O.T., usually referring
to a deity and yet distinguished from Jehovah. ("Handy Dictionary of
the Bible"-by Merrill C. Tenney, 1965, pg. 9)
Angel of the Lord. The angel of the Lord, sometimes the angel of 'God' or 'my' (or 'his') angel; is represented in scripture as a HEAVENLY being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman. In many passages he is virtually identified with God and speaks not merely in the name of God, BUT AS GOD IN THE FIRST PERSON SINGULAR... He is not recognized at once in Jdg. 13:3ff, and is not even visible to Balaam (Nu. 22:22ff); but mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a DIVINE BEING, even though in human form, and is addressed as God (Gn. 16:13,etc.). (Tyndale, "New Bible Dictionary" 2nd Edition, 1982 [there were at least 3 editors of this book with Ph.d's]).
All throughout the OT period the Angel of the Lord was
identified as God appearing in human form, while also being distinct from God.
Nowhere in the Bible (Old or New Testament) has any angel or any prophet
claimed God's words as their very own, but would emphasize that these are the
words that the Lord spoke to them, e.g. "thus says the Lord." The
only other Person who claimed God's Words as his very own was Christ. Hence, by
appealing to Jewish history Zaatari has made the Quran to be a lie! He claims
no Israelite ever understood this Angel to be God, yet Muhammad and Allah
themselves say that IT WAS GOD WHO APPEARED TO MOSES IN THE BUSH, WHICH MEANS
THAT THE QURAN AGREES THAT THE ANGEL IS GOD!!
Now Zaatari is in a dilemma. Does he believe that it was
Allah or his Angel who appeared to Moses in the bush? Moreover, does he accept
the fact that Allah’s agents can be called and worshiped as Allah since they
speak on his behalf?
And since Zaatari loves walking the slippery slope of appealing to Jewish sources and because:
Trinitarians like to ignore contextual history, and how things were understood and applied back in the past. They like to come up with their own modern interpretations to back up their false Trinitarian belief.
Let’s provide him with some Jewish references, specifically concerning the prehuman existence of the Messiah, since this will help expose his distortion of Jewish history and exegesis. The following is taken from the introduction to I Enoch found in, “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols)” [Charlesworth (ed), Doubleday: 1983]:
The Messiah in 1 Enoch, called the Righteous One, and the Son of Man, is depicted as a PRE-EXISTENT HEAVENTLY BEING who is resplendent and majestic, possesses all dominion, and sits on his throne of glory passing judgment upon all mortal and spiritual beings. (Ibid, vol. 1, pg. 9)
And here is a quote from the book itself:
At that place, I saw the One to WHOM BELONGS THE TIME BEFORE TIME. And his head was white like wool, AND THERE WAS WITH HIM another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels...'Who is this?'...And he answered me and said, 'This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells.... this Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones... I Enoch 46.1ff
Notice that in this Jewish text the Messiah is WITH GOD,
described as the One whom belongs time before time! Here is another reference:
At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time; EVEN BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE SUN AND THE MOON, BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE STARS, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits and it is his good pleasure that they have life. ...For they (the wicked kings and landowners) have denied the Lord of the Spirits AND HIS MESSIAH. I Enoch 48.2-10
According
to certain ancient Jewish beliefs the Messiah existed before creation and was
their hope for salvation.
Unfortunately for Zaatari, Muhammad’s ignorance of ancient
Judaism led him to erroneously assume that the Messiah only came into existence
when he was born. Thus, according to Jewish history and exegesis Muhammad was
an ignorant person, and therefore a false prophet, for denying what certain
strands of Judaism believed concerning the Messiah being a preexistent heavenly
being.
This also silences the oft-repeated lies of Muslim polemicists that ancient Judaism never thought of the Messiah as the Son of God or as a preexistent being, etc. Therefore, in the words of Zaatari, Muslims,
“like to ignore contextual history, and how things were understood and applied back in the past. They like to come up with their own modern interpretations to back up their false Islamic belief.”
I’m sure Zaatari would gladly agree with this assessment in light of the evidence we just presented from ancient Jewish sources.
Now he can simply side with the Quran and deny that the Jews were correct in their understanding concerning the Messiah. But if he does so then he must also admit that the Jews could actually be mistaken that the OT Angel of God wasn’t called God because he was Divine, but because he was God’s agent, nothing more nothing less.
Moreover, the idea that the ancient Jews didn't believe in a multi-personal God is also false. As one scholar put it:
“The New Testament writers’
conception of corporate personality [for example, King: Nation, Tribe: Person,
Messiah: Remnant] extends to an understanding of God himself as a corporate
being, a viewpoint which underlies their conviction that Jesus the Messiah
has a unique unity with God and which later comes into definitive formulation
in the doctrine of the Trinity. The origin of this conviction, which in some
measure goes back to the earthly ministry of Jesus, is complex, disputed and
not easy to assess. One can here only briefly survey the way in which the early
Christian understanding and use of their Bible may have reflected or
contributed to this perspective on the relationship of the being of God to the
person of the Messiah.
“Already in the Old Testament
and in pre-Christian Judaism the one God was understood to have 'plural'
manifestations. In ancient
“In later strata of the Old
Testament and in intertestamental Judaism certain attributes of
God - such as his Word or his Wisdom- were viewed and used in a similar
manner. In some instances the usage is only a poetic personification, a
description of God's action under the name of the particular divine attribute
that he employs. In others, however, it appears to represent a divine
hypostasis, the essence of God's own being that is at the same time
distinguishable from God.
“From this background,
together with a messianic hope that included the expectation that Yahweh
himself would come to deliver Israel, the followers of Jesus would have been
prepared, wholly within a Jewish monotheistic and 'salvation history'
perspective, to see in the Messiah a manifestation of God. In the event,
they were brought to this conclusion by their experience of Jesus' works and
teachings, particularly as it came to a culmination in his resurrection appearances
and commands. Although during his earthly ministry they had, according to the
Gospel accounts, occasionally been made aware of a strange otherness about
Jesus, only after his resurrection do they identify him as God. Paul, the first
literary witness to do this, probably expresses a conviction initially formed
at his Damascus Christophany. John the Evangelist, who wrote later but who saw
the risen Lord (and was a bearer of early traditions about that event), also
describes the confession of Jesus as God as a reaction to the resurrection
appearances. Yet, such direct assertions of Jesus' deity are exceptional
in the New Testament and could hardly have been sustained among Jewish
believers apart from a perspective on the Old Testament that affirmed and/or
confirmed a manifestation of Yahweh in and as Messiah.
“The New Testament writers usually set forth Messiah's unity with God by identifying him with God's Son or Spirit or image or wisdom or by applying to him biblical passages that in their original context referred to Yahweh. They often do this within an implicit or explicit commentary (midrash) on Scripture and thereby reveal their conviction that the 'supernatural' dimension of Jesus' person is not merely that of an angelic messenger but is the being of God himself. "The use of Scripture in first and second century Judaism, then, marked a watershed in the biblical doctrine of God. At that time it channeled the imprecise monotheism of the Old Testament and early Judaism in two irreversible directions. On the one hand Jewish-Christian apostles and prophets, via 'corporate personality' conceptions and Christological exposition, set a course that led to the trinitarian monotheism of late Christianity. On the other hand the rabbinic writers, with their exegetical emphasis on God's unity, BROUGHT INTO FINAL DEFINITION THE UNITARIAN MONOTHEISM OF TALMUDIC JUDAISM.” (The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, E. Earle Ellis, Baker: 1991 pp. 112-116)
Hence, the Judaism of Jesus’ day is different from
the Judaism of today which insists that God is unitarian in nature. History
clearly shows that Jesus and the 1st century Jews believed in a
complex Divine unity, a “corporate” view of God, which clearly refutes the
notion that ancient Jews held to the view of God being a unitarian monad.
Zaatari tries to tackle the issue of the Angel speaking to God in Zechariah 1:10-15. He uses this text to show that whenever the Angel speaks of Yahweh in the third person he wasn’t speaking of himself as God, but referring to or quoting the One whom he represents.
It seems that Zaatari simply doesn’t want to get the point. Just because the Angel spoke of Yahweh in the third person right after his talk with God doesn’t mean that he wasn’t referring to himself as God. This is especially so when the very same Book identifies this Angel as Yahweh God:
“Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing
before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right
side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you,
Satan! The LORD, who has chosen
It is clear from the context that
the Yahweh who rebuked Satan was the Angel since he is the only other entity
mentioned besides Joshua. What we can glean from this is that the Angel can be
referring to himself as Yahweh by using third person address, even though he is
distinct from and speaks to Yahweh.
Hence, Zechariah 1 can still be the
words of the Angel himself since, being Israel’s God, he was comforting his
people by informing them of his love which led him to intercede on their behalf
before God so that he, the Angel, would be granted permission to come to rescue
his remnant and bring judgement against the nations that persecuted the chosen
race. This interpretation makes perfect sense in light of Zechariah 2:7-13,
which Shamoun quoted, that speaks of Yahweh sending Yahweh to dwell in the
midst of his people. It is obvious that the Angel would be the Yahweh who was
sent when we take into consideration that Zechariah 3:1-2 identifies him as
Yahweh.
However, Zaatari does try to refute Shamoun’s point concerning Zechariah 2 by coming up with some rather incoherent babble, which really needs no refutation. Zaatari’s “reply” only further shows why he needs to retire from doing apologetics since he is a disgrace to Muslims (on second thought, Muhammad himself was a disgrace so Zaatari is in good company since he is following the footsteps of his false prophet).
Furthermore, as Shamoun stated, even
if Zaatari is correct regarding the use of the third person this still doesn’t
prove his case concerning the Angel not being God. The most that Zaatari can
show from this is that in this particular context, i.e. Zechariah 1:10-15, the
Angel was not speaking of himself when he referred to Yahweh in the third
person, since he was relaying what Yahweh had told him. Yet this doesn’t show
that the Angel isn’t Yahweh, but merely demonstrates that there is more than
one Person who is God. Nor does it prove that the Angel wasn’t speaking of
himself as God in all those other passages where he used the third person
address.
Zaatari claims that Exodus 23:20-23
doesn’t say that the Angel of God can forgive sins, despite the fact that the
text says,
“I am going to send an angel before you, to protect you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him. But if you diligently obey him, and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and I will be an adversary to your adversaries. For my angel will go before you, and bring you in to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I will cut them off.” Exodus 23:20-23 NET Bible
And now to prove that God meant that the Angel does have the authority to
forgive sins notice what happened when the Israelites failed to heed God’s
warning concerning not rebelling against this Messenger who embodies the Divine
Name:
“The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim
and said, ‘I brought you up out of
Just as God warned, the Angel refused to forgive the sins
of the Israelites and did not drive their enemies out from the land.
As if his arguments couldn’t get any more laughable or
desperate, Zaatari argues that the sins which the Angel removes in Zechariah
3:3-4 are Joshua’s dirty clothes! He then says that the word for sin, avon,
can refer to the person’s condition which in this context refers to the
condition of Joshua’s clothes being dirty!?
It seems that Zaatari doesn’t understand that the filthy garments symbolized Joshua’s sins, much like white robes represent a person’s righteous deeds:
“To the angel of the church in
“‘Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure’— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the true words of God.’” Revelation 19:7-9
Hence, by having Joshua’s filthy garments removed the Angel was showing that he has the power to forgive a person’s transgressions, which is a Divine function that no creature can carry out:
“Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and
forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay
angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us;
you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths
of the sea.” Micah 7:18-19
“Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who
can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark
2:7
The Angel was pretty much informing Joshua that he had
changed his sinful condition so as to be righteous in his sight.
This leads me to my next point. Zaatari fails to note the
fact that other angels such as Gabriel or Michael never identify themselves as
God, but clearly mention who they are, nor do they claim God's words as their
very own,
"While I, Daniel, was watching
the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked
like a man. And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, ‘Gabriel,
tell this man the meaning of the vision.’” Daniel 8:15-16
“While I was speaking and praying,
confessing my sin and the sin of my people
“A hand touched me and set me
trembling on my hands and knees. He said, 'Daniel, you who are highly esteemed,
consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I
have now been sent to you.' And when he said this to me, I stood up
trembling. Then he continued, 'Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day
that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before
your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.
But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained
there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will
happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to
come'… but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one
supports me against them except Michael, your prince." Daniel
10:10-14, 21
Which is unlike this specific Angel:
“The angel of the LORD found
Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to
Shur. And he said, 'Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and
where are you going?' 'I'm running away from my mistress Sarai,' she answered.
Then the angel of the LORD told her, 'Go back to your mistress and
submit to her.' The angel added, 'I will so increase your descendants that
they will be too numerous to count.' The angel of the LORD also said to
her: 'You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him
Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a
man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he
will live in hostility toward all his brothers.' She gave this name to the
LORD who spoke to her: 'You are the God who sees me,' for she said,
'I have now seen the One who sees me.' That is why the well was called Beer
Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh an d Bered.” Genesis 16:7-14
Notice that the Angel of the LORD says that he will
personally bless Hagar by giving her descendants too numerous to count, which is
unlike the language of angels like Gabriel who always speak of God giving a
specific person special blessings and favors:
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared
to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him,
he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: ‘Do not
be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear
you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will be a joy and delight
to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the
sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he
will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of
“In the
sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to
Further notice that the author of Genesis (Moses) calls the
Angel Yahweh/LORD and that Hagar herself identifies him as the God who sees
her, even though she knew that it was the Angel who was speaking to her!
Now if God said that he will not share his glory with
another then this Angel was either blaspheming, and God let him get away with
it or, he must be God who is sent by God!
Zaatari also tries to downplay the issue of people bowing to the Angel by claiming that it is a sign of respect and nothing more, which conveniently ignores the fact that angels refuse to accept such honors as we can see from Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9. Why refuse this honor if they are God’s agents who speak on his behalf and can therefore be granted such homage since these acts of reverence are really directed to the God they represent?
In conclusion, I would like to repeat my point that Zaatari
needs to stop disgracing himself and Muslims and find another line of work. If
he really cares for Muhammad then he needs to stop assisting us in exposing why
his prophet produces a community of unbelievers who cannot refute the truth of
the Gospel of the Lord.