Looking at FALSE Christian beliefs in... Jesus Christ Pt. 3

Sam Shamoun


As promised here is the third part of our rebuttal to Nisar’s article found here:

http://www.answerchristianity.fsnet.co.uk/JC.htm 

NISAR:

Lemcio states it carefully (LPJG:45):

So, while Mark himself does not say so explicitly, perhaps we might infer that he proposed to narrate how the one who was indeed the Son of God in status from the beginning nevertheless had to learn the complementary role of obedience through suffering (cf. Heb. 5.8-9). And this need for the perfection or completion of obedience unto death may provide the theological motive for the secrecy phenomena: to divulge knowledge of Jesus ' status as the Son of God and Messiah before his role as such was fulfilled risked telling a half-truth. Once the obedience of the Son of Man was completed (not necessarily a foregone conclusion), then one could proclaim his identity as the Son of God openly. Such an interpretation would take seriously the temporal termination of the secret permitted in 9:9.

And, indeed, this is EXACTLY what happened. Jesus' favourite self-expression "The Son of Man" was used 78 times in the Gospels, but after Easter it is only used by the Church ONCE (Acts 7.56)! The early believing community tried to be faithful to their Lord's instructions. The new age had come, and the Son of Man could now properly be lifted up as the Son of God.

RESPONSE:

Jesus is identified as the heavenly Son of Man of Daniel’s vision, the One who is given sovereign rule over all flesh and who receives an eternal kingdom:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

Now compare the above citation with Jesus’ “Son of Man” statements:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28

“Peter answered him, ‘We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?' Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed ME will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields FOR MY SAKE will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.’” Matthew 19:27-30

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world’… Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’… Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:31-34, 41. 45-46

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’” Matthew 28:18

“If anyone is ashamed of ME and MY WORDS in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

Therefore, the use of the title Son of Man in relation to Christ is to highlight his divine authority and his sovereign rulership. In point of fact, Jesus uses the phrase “Son of Man” to denote both his divine prerogatives and divine functions, as the following citations further demonstrate:

“I tell you, something GREATER than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man IS LORD OF THE SABBATH.” Matthew 12:6-8

Jesus is greater than God’s temple, being the very Lord of the Sabbath.

“And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, ‘Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk”? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’- he said to the paralytic- ‘I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.’ And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘We never saw anything like this!’” Mark 2:5-12

Jesus as the Son of Man heals and forgives sins, prerogatives belonging to God alone:

“Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,” Psalm 103:2-4

“… Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61b-62

Jesus as the Son of God is also the Son of Man that sits at God’s right hand and comes in the clouds of heaven. We have already seen above in Matthew 25:31-46 that as the Son of Man, Jesus will judge the eternal destiny of all men as the following citations reiterate:

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.” John 5:26-27

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of man?’ He answered, ‘And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.’ He said, ‘Lord, I believe’; and he WORSHIPED HIM. Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’” John 9:35-39

Furthermore, the title also serves to highlight Jesus’ willingness to identify with the humanity that he came to redeem:

“It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. But there is a place where someone has testified: ‘What is man that you are mindful of him, THE SON OF MAN that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.’ In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.’ And again, ‘I will put my trust in him.’ And again he says, ‘Here am I, and the children God has given me.’ Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Hebrews 2:5-18

Finally, Nisar (or his source) is in error regarding the Church using the title only once outside the Gospels, since Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man twice in John’s Apocalyptic letter to the seven churches of Asia:

“… ‘Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a.’ Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like A SON OF MAN, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I DIED, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” Revelation 1:11b-18

“Then I looked, and lo, a white cloud, and SEATED ON THE CLOUD ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to HIM WHO SAT UPON THE CLOUD, ‘Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.’ So HE WHO SAT UPON THE CLOUD swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.” Revelation 14:14-16

We now return to Nisar, omitting irrelevant material:

NISAR:

Trinity And Divinity Of Christ

When Jesus was on earth as the Messiah he was God as in God the almighty, the Lord God. Hence God is the Messiah. Of Christ it is said that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). As the Messiah on earth he was all of the being of God. Christians say Jesus is the true God. Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in human form. Hence, Christians admit that Christ was God Almighty in human form?

Christian theology applies to him titles of God:
God the Father
God
Almighty
Great God

The Christian theologians claim that even the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God.

God in Christ took to himself a human nature while remaining fully divine. Further proof that according to Christians JESUS CHRIST IS GOD ALMIGHTY;

That Jesus Christ is Himself YHWH (1) i.e. that God Almighty come in the flesh, is that YHWH alone is to be "worshipped" but while on earth according to Christians Jesus Christ was worshipped.

RESPONSE:

First, Nisar is wrong by claiming that God is the Messiah since this would imply that Jesus is the entire Godhead to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Or worse, Nisar’s formulation would imply that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which would be Modalism not Trinitarianism.

The correct thing to say is that Jesus is God, which implies that although he is fully God in nature he is not the only Person who is. Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are also fully and eternally God. Therefore, God is not just the Messiah. Instead, God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Second, we challenge Nisar to produce one official Trinitarian statement or creed that calls Jesus God the Father. Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus is God the Father, but that he is God the Son and is personally distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Third, Jesus is God Almighty, and yet so are the Father and the Holy Spirit! Since all three Persons share the same eternal Being of God, all three are rightly called God Almighty.

Nisar now turns his attention to Jesus and Mary having to eat food. Since we will be addressing this point when dealing with the Quranic view of the Trinity, we omit this section for now.

NISAR:

Clement of Alexandria ," In the case of JESUS Christ, it is ludicrous to suppose that his body needed the necessary aids (of hunger ) for its survivual. For he ATE not for the sake of the body, but so that it might not enter the minds of his companions to hold a false view of him (docetism)".

CARPET BAGS 6:9 "Clement could not believe that Jesus needed FOOD".

Muslims argue that Jesus could not be the eternal, divine Son of God since he was a human being and, as such, he became hungry (Luke 4.2). Because he needed to eat like all other men , hence, he could not have been divine for God is self-subsistent and depends on nothing. In a nutshell verse 5:78 proves that Jesus was not the Son of God or an incarnation of God, for he felt the necessity of asking for food for his very subsistence.

Clement advocated the docetic view without reservation. He here and there plainly called Jesus a man and spoke of his flesh. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ's body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Storm. VI 9.71).

RESPONSE:

Notice the contradiction. Nisar cites one authority which claims that Clement was a Docetist, and therefore denied the real humanity of Christ. Yet, Nisar quotes Clement’s letter where the latter clearly refutes the false views of the Docetists!:

In the case of JESUS Christ, it is ludicrous to suppose that his body needed the necessary aids (of hunger ) for its survival. For he ATE not for the sake of the body, but so that it might NOT enter the minds of his companions TO HOLD A FALSE VIEW OF HIM (DOCETISM)"

The following citations from Clement are taken from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998, edited by David W. Bercot. They serve to reinforce the fact that Clement in no way held to a Docetic view of Christ’s humanity. All bold and capital emphasis ours:

He is GOD IN THE FORM OF MAN, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand. And with the form of God He is God. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.210. (p. 95)

There is a suggestion of the divinity of the Lord in [Isaac’s] not being slain. JESUS ROSE AGAIN AFTER HIS BURIAL, having suffered no harm-just like Isaac was released from being sacrificed. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.215. (Ibid.)

O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father and the Father in the Son… God the Word, WHO BECAME MAN FOR OUR SAKES. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.215. (Ibid.)

God the Word INCARNATE, is intellectual light. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.578. (p. 108)

The Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God IN MAN and MAN IN God. The Mediator executes the Father’s will. For the Mediator is the Word who is common to both man and God. He is the Son of God, but the Savior of men. He is God’s Servant, but our Teacher. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.271. (p. 122)

The Son of God-He who made the universe-ASSUMED FLESH AND WAS CONCEIVED IN THE VIRGIN’S WOMB. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.509. (p. 356)

The loving Lord BECAME MAN for us. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.543. (Ibid.)

The Lord Christ, THE FRUIT OF THE VIRGIN, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.220. (p. 438)

As it appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of THE BIRTH OF HER CHILD, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, AFTER SHE BROUGHT FORTH, she was found, when examined, to still be a virgin. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.551. (Ibid.)

… Jesus, whom of the lightning flash of Divinity the virgin BORE. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 E) 2.578. (p. 671)

Finally, here is J.N.D. Kelly on Clement’s Christology:

“… Much of his teaching conforms to the conventional pattern. The Logos, he states, ‘has come down to us from heaven’; the Lord has ‘entered into’, or ‘attached’ Himself to, HUMAN FLESH. In becoming INCARNATE and so making Himself visible, He has begotten Himself i.e. CREATED HIS OWN HUMANITY. So Christ is BOTH HUMAN and Divine-‘alone both, GOD AND MAN’. He has ‘clothed Himself with a man’, being ‘God in the form of a man, unsullied’ AND AS SUCH HAS REALLY SUFFERED. Though criticized as such by Photius, CLEMENT WAS NO DOCETIST, AND DEFENDED THE REALITY OF THE INCARNATION; but many of his statements, e.g. that Christ was no ordinary man with physical passions have a distinctly docetic ring. It seems certain, however, despite the questionings of many scholars, that he attributed a human soul or mind to the God-man…” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition [HarperSan Francisco, a division of Harper Collins Publishers], pp. 153-154; bold and capital emphasis ours)

NISAR:

The Eastern theologian John of Damascus (about A.D. 675-749), in defending iconolatry, admitted the fact that THE two natures of Christ cannot be found in the scriptures. John of Damascus then continued, "but we know those doctrines are true". After he acknowledged that the incarnation is an innovation, John of Damascus went on to urge his readers to hold fast to them as venerable tradition delivered to the Christians by the fathers.

RESPONSE:

It might be true that John of Damascus admitted that the Scriptures didn’t teach the two natures of Christ, but that only demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the Holy Bible. The following passages explicitly affirm Christ's dual natures:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1, 14

"As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things… 'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!'" John 8:40, 58

Christ is man and at the same time existed before Abraham ever came into being.

“Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’ Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” John 20:24-29

Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances demonstrate that Christ is the God-man. Because Christ retains his human nature, albeit glorified, he could show Thomas the marks he endured while on the cross. And because Christ is also God at the same time, he can receive the worship due to God. One note of caution before we proceed any further. We are not saying that Thomas worshiped Jesus’ glorified humanity or physical body. Rather, Thomas worshiped the person of Christ who became and remains embodied forever.

“None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 1 Corinthians 2:8

The Lord of glory could be crucified since he had become man. Since it is one person who is both God (“the Lord of glory”) and man (“crucified”), not two, Paul could say that it was the Lord of glory that had been crucified.

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9

The term for "dwell", katoikei, is a present participle denoting continuous action or existence. Paul affirms that Jesus continues to exist as absolute and perfect Deity in bodily form.

Noted Christian scholar, Dr. Robert Morey, indicates:

"… The verb katoikei 'dwells' is in the present tense and indicates that Christ was, is, and always shall be the embodiment of Deity... It is, thus, a mistake to restrict this verse to the incarnation. If Paul had the incarnation in mind, he would have written the verb in the aorist tense. But the present tense clearly indicates that absolute deity resides bodily in Christ permanently... The embodiment may have begun at the incarnation, but it is an ongoing reality in heaven where the glorified body of Jesus resides until His return to judge the living and the dead." (Dr. Robert Morey, Trinity-Evidence and Issues [Grand Rapids, MI; World Publishing Inc., 1996], pp. 359-360; bold emphasis ours)

Greek grammarians Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers state:

"to settle down, to be at home (Col. 1:19). The pres. act. ind. tense indicates the continually state and points to the pres. reality." (Rienecker & Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1980], p. 573; bold emphasis ours)

William Hendriksen affirms,

"Paul uses the present tense. He does not say that the Word became flesh but that the fullness of the Godhead dwells or is dwelling in Christ. And surely that indwelling did not just begin with the incarnation. It is an eternal indwelling." (Morey, Trinity, p. 360 bold emphasis ours)

Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest translates Col. 2:9 in the following manner:

"Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fullness of absolute deity in bodily fashion." (Morey, p. 358; bold emphasis ours)

Hence, while in heaven Jesus perpetually exists as the God-man.

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being (Greek- hyperchon) in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!" Philippians 2:5-8

The term for "being" in Greek is in the present participle and implies a continuous existence or abiding reality. Rienecker and Rogers indicate,

"The word [huperchon] expresses continuance of antecedent state or condition." (Morey, p. 550)

Hendriksen concurs,

"The present participle huperchon stands in a sharp contrast with all the aorist which follow it, and therefore points in the direction of continuance of being: Christ Jesus was and is eternally 'in the form of God.'" (Hendriksen, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians [London; Banner, 1963] p. 103, n. 82; bold emphasis ours)

Dr. Morey states:

"… The verb huperchon is a present active participle and means that Jesus was the 'essence of God' not only before His incarnation but after it as well. At no point before or after His incarnation did Jesus cease to be the essence of God… Before His descent from heaven, Jesus Christ was the essence of God. During His time on earth, He was the essence of God. After His ascension back to heaven, He was the essence of God. And today Jesus is still the essence of God. As Wuest points out, 'This is the impact of Paul's use of the present participle.'" (Morey, pp. 336-337; bold emphasis ours)

Hence, this and Colossians 2:9 are perhaps the strongest proof for Jesus' dual natures.

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 'What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?' 'The son of David,' they replied. He said to them, 'How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him "Lord"? For he says, "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" If then David calls him "Lord," how can he be his son?' No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." Matthew 22:41-46

The only way for the Messiah to be both David's Lord and son is if he were both God and Man at the same time. This is precisely the answer Jesus himself gives in Revelation:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16

Again, the only way for Christ to be the root and offspring of David is if he was both God and man at the same time. This clearly establishes that the Holy Bible does in fact teach that Jesus had dual natures.

Here is the final line of evidence:

"I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone ‘like a son of man,’ dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I WAS DEAD, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.’" Revelation 1:12-18

"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze." Revelation 2:18

In these passages John has attributed to Jesus the form of Yahweh found in the OT:

"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened... In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7:9-10

"When the creatures moved, I heard the sound of their wings, like the roar of rushing waters, like the voice of the Almighty, like the tumult of an army. When they stood still, they lowered their wings... Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking." Ezekiel 1:24, 26-28

"God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth. His splendor was like the sunrise; rays flashed from his hand, where his power was hidden." Habakkuk 3:3-4

John clearly portrays Christ as the God-man by ascribing to him both the form of God and the form of man (i.e. "like a son of man").

NISAR: Scholars say that NON-Chalcedonian Christians like Jacobites, Gnostic/Doceists, Nestorians(as opposed to their founder), Monophysists - respectively deny the humanity of Christ, the two natures in Him .

RESPONSE:

First, Nisar is wrong regarding the Nestorians’ alleged denial of the Son’s humanity. Nestorians are accused of believing that there are two distinct persons and two natures in Christ, something which many scholars have called into question. There is actual evidence from the early writings of the Nestorians that show them holding to a very orthodox Christology. Author Gerry Redman writes:

This term is perhaps a misnomer, for Nestorius was not guilty of holding to the heresy that bears his name... Formerly, it was held that Nestorius believed in dual personality of Christ, but the discovery of ‘Book of Heraclides’, where he accepts the Chalcedonian Definition, has undermined this. His position was that the two natures remain distinct in the union. The Godhead exists in the man mind and vice versa, without mixture or confusion. The Incarnation cannot affect the impassible Logos in change or suffering. Christ experienced genuine human emotional development. Such is impossible if deity and humanity fused. Thus the two natures were parallel and undiminished as to their respective properties and economy. For Nestorius, the term ‘nature’ was equivalent to the concrete character of a thing. - the quality of being human or divine; e.g., humanity is circumscribed by finiteness. Prosopon was equivalent to the external form as an individual; nature is not an abstract concept - human nature demands a real, external body & soul to exist. This also demands hypostasis (equivalent to concrete subsistence), thus the human nature of Christ was not a cloak, pace ‘Word-flesh’, but was objectively real - without dichotomising Christ, His human nature had real personality - as did His deity of course, though there was only one Person. Nestorius rejected Paul of Samosata’s dogma of the two Sons: the Incarnate was a unity - God the Logos and the man are not numerically two. Never divided in purpose or will. Thus there are not two Persons, but one prosopon, with two ousiai - divine and human. Nestorius preferred to use ‘conjunction’, rather than ‘union’, as the latter could imply confusion of natures.

The man was the temple in which God dwelt: it was a voluntary conjunction - gracious condescension on the part of the divine, willing submission with regard to the human. Christ was a single being with a single will and intelligence -inseparable and indivisible. ‘Christ’ is the prosopon of union - the prosopon is not identified with the eternal Logos or the man, but is the consequence of the ‘coalescence’. With regard to the communicatio idiomatum, the human actions of Christ should be predicated of the human nature, the divine of the deity, but both could be predicated of the Person. The trouble occurred because either party had differing starting-points, one stressing the distinction of natures, the other the unity of the Person. (http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/hypostatic_union.html#a8; bold emphasis ours)

Redmand produces quotations from early Nestorian writings predating Islam (c. 486 and 596 AD) illustrating their orthodox Christology. Here are some relevant portions:

It seemed good to his fatherhood and to all the metropolitans and bishops to write this composition of the faith... which accurately and plainly teaches us the confession... the same by which... all heresy is convicted and condemned which denies the Godhead and manhood of our Life-giver, Jesus Christ, accepting it with the exact meaning of the holy fathers, which the illustrious among the orthodox, the blessed Theodore the Antiochian, bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, ‘the Interpreter of the Divine Scriptures,’ explained, with which all the orthodox in all regions have agreed and do agree, as also all the venerable fathers who have governed this apostolic and patriarchal see of our administration have held, while we anathematize and alienate from all contact with us everyone who denies the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether through mixture and commingling, or compounding or confusing, introducing, with regard to the union of the Son of God, either suffering, or death, or any of the mean circumstances of humanity in any way, to the glorious nature of his Godhead, or considering as a mere man the Lordly temple of God the Word, which, in an inexplicable mystery and an incomprehensible union, he joined to himself IN THE WOMB OF THE HOLY VIRGIN in an eternal, indestructible, and indivisible union.

Again, we also reject… one who calls the one Christ, the Son of God, two sons or two Christs, or one who does not say that the Word of God fulfilled the suffering of our salvation in the body of his manhood. Though he was in him, with him, and toward him IN THE BELLY, on the cross, in suffering, and for ever, inseparably, while the glorious nature of his Godhead did not participate in any sufferings, yet we strongly believe, according to the word and intent of the writings and traditions of the holy fathers, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten before the foundations of the world in his Godhead, spiritually, without a mother, and in the last times WAS BORN from the holy Virgin in a fleshly manner without the intercourse of a man through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, in his eternal Godhead and in his manhood from Mary, one true Son of God, who in the nature of his manhood accepted suffering and death for us, and by the power of his Godhead raised up his uncorrupted body after three days, and promised resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and a new and indestructible and abiding world for ever. (Synod of Mar Sabris, AD 596) bold and capital emphasis ours

Second, monophysites do not deny that the Son became man. Rather, they believe that Christ’s humanity fused in with his divinity and therefore his humanity became divinized or divine.

NISAR:

A miracle, to use the definition given by David Hume, is a violation of a law of nature. It is not a violation of a law of logic. Thus, while God is perfectly capable of using His power to turn sticks into snakes, or have a virgin give birth and so on, He 'cannot' make 2 + 2 = 5, or create married bachelors, and so on. There are two different categories here. Now my own argument was that the supposed incarnation of God (when the presuppositions of classical theism are taken into consideration) falls into the latter not the former. It's simply a logical contradiction - you have an entity who is 100% man and 100% God. What kind of nonsense is this? Even Tertullian, one of the early Church fathers (who, BTW, coined the term "Trinitas" and used the term trinity to speak of God), said:

"The son of God was crucified; it's not silly, because it must be silly. And the son of God died; it's absolutely credible, because it's daft. And the buried rose again; it's certain, because it's impossible [Certum est, quia impossibile] (De carne Christi, ch. 5, 4)

See what I mean? The great Tertullian, the Christian apologist and defender of the faith - the greatest Christian theologian until Augustine admits that it's completely irrational to give affirmation to the curious doctrine of the incarnation and the trinity.

To Justin the the incarnation is irrational. (p212, Harnack.)

RESPONSE:

First, Nisar has clearly misrepresented the Christian arguments for the Trinity. No informed Trinitarian would compare the Trinity to a mathematic equation, especially one which seeks to make 2+2 equal 5. Furthermore, if one were to use a mathematically equation to represent the Trinity one would not use Nisar’s example which is mathematically impossible and therefore contradictory. Nisar’s false analogy only serves to expose his Islamic presuppositions which do not allow him to seriously consider and accept the biblical basis for the Trinity.

If one were to use a mathematical analogy of the Trinity one could use the following examples:

1 x 1 x1= 1 or 1 to the third power is still 1.

Hence, we find that even math itself furnishes examples to support the idea of multiplicity within unity, that three multiples of 1 can still equal 1!

Furthermore, the validity of the Trinity is not dependent on the ability of rationalists or wise men to explain it logically. Rather, the truth of the Trinity is completely dependent upon special revelation. This revelation is found and recorded only within the inspired pages of the Holy Bible. Interestingly, the Holy Bible warns against blindly accepting human wisdom and tradition that seeks to undermine God’s self-revelation. The Holy Bible testifies that human wisdom has failed to accurately explain or reveal God’s true nature and manner of existence:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-29

“Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’” 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” Colossians 2:8-10

Hence, Christians turn to the Holy Bible for answers regarding God’s nature and existence, not to philosophers or rationalists.

Finally, both Tertullian and Justin Martyr present many rational and philosophical arguments in support of the Trinity, which shows that Nisar has wrenched the words of these men out of their intended context. Even if it were true that these men admitted that doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation were irrational, this didn’t stop them from believing, defending and dying for these biblical truths solely because they were truths revealed in Holy Scripture.

This concludes this section. More rebuttals to follow shortly by the sovereign grace and power of the only true and eternal Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We love you always and eagerly await your return in glory.

  1. Home Back Home
  2. Articles by Sam Shamoun Found on Answering Islam main site

E-mail me Quennel Gale at QMAX21@blackplanet.com