Sunday, June 1, 2014

Can God Become a Man? Debate

I was generally happy with the debate and learned some helpful things from the experience. One point I did not say during the debate was that God did not add to himself a human nature because he was lacking in any way but as an act of grace towards us. I want to address the ad hominem methodology next time too.


Baron Eddie said...

One of Islam's God 99 names is Al-Qadir "القادر" meaning "The All-Powerful, He Who is able to do Everything"

If this is what they believe ... then why God can not Become Man?
Names of God in Islam
number 69 in the list ...

If in Islam God revealed himself in mountain and tree!
Then why can not reveal himself in a man?
where man is more valuable than a tree and a mountain ...

Then God of Islam is not Al-Qadir, they are limiting and rejecting their God!

Thanks Mr. Green for posting the debate

WIKI's Page said...

I am not sure about your statement about created nature. When the muslim debater asked about which nature died, you mentioned the created nature.Lord Jesus was not created. You could have said human nature.

Anonymous said...

Since man is already made in God's/Christ's image, then it is nothing for Him to put on flesh and automatically be able to relate to us as a man.

Devotee of Christ said...

Sorry sir, no disrespect intended but I personally think you didn't do well. I might be wrong and people here might disagree. You might have brought home all the points and arguments but I feel they were not convincingly, assertively, and as was required at some points, forcefully, put across. If this were a documental, academic exchange then an reader would've been able to objectively assess your arguments and be convinced. But in a live debate the audience judges subjectively to a degree, despite their best efforts otherwise and I believe you didn't dial-up the necessary presentation and delivery flair required to convince the audience or a least the fence-sitters among them. Just my honest, personal opinion. But thanks brother for being an ardent defender of God's Word.

hugh watt said...

This is what happens when people (Muslims),speak without thinking.

At 36:10 approx' Wesam said God cannot become dishonest otherwise He would cease to be God. Yet, the Koran and Islamic sources say Allah is a deceiver!

hugh watt said...


Sorry, near the end of the debate (1:50:38), a question was put to Wesam on the master who he'd prefer: one who humbles himself to demonsrate what he is teaching, or the master who would not humbley lower himself so?

I noticed Wesam was not as demonsrative in his manner when addressing this question and as seen chose not to answer it directly.

If that wins a debate...

Devotee of Christ said...

Hi Hugh, I wasn't trying to pronounce who won and lost. As a layman listener I honestly felt Bro Green could have put his points forth in a better manner throughout the debate overall though he brought home the strong points. I felt I needed to be honest to my conscience and share this feedback as much as It makes me uncomfortable. It is way tougher than just singing praises and humoring the person. And I share this feedback because I want Bro Green and all our great brothers to win and convince the muslim each time, every time.

Anthony Rogers said...

Here is an article I wrote that resonates with a number of the points Samuel made in his opening statement.

hugh watt said...


“And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom but in demonstration of Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of man but in the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2:1-5

Moses too had issues with his calling but God had a word with him.

Read 1 Cor. 1:20ff

I've had many Muslims (and others), try to persuade me by a show of the flesh that Islam, etc, is true. Even had Satan's salesman pitch tried against me. When I came to the Lord it was not some verbally zealous preacher who got my attention. In fact, it was someone not too disimilar to SG.

I heard both debaters. Sam ducked nothing put to him, though he may not have addressed all questions. Wesam tried that oft seen tactic of..well, go to 1:50:38 and see. I thought the question from the floor was fair. The questioner pushed Wesam for an answer but he would not comply.

Radical Moderate said...

"Barth Ehman is an outcast."

This guy needs to update his Ehrman lol

Radical Moderate said...

Pastor Green great job pulling out the Barth Ehrman V 2.0

Samuel Green said...

#Devotee of Christ

Thanks for your comments and I agree. As I wrote in the post I think my main weakness was not to expose his use of the ad homimen methodology. But I am not going to put on an act.

That being said I used a whole lot of new material to which he did not seem to have an answer. Live and learn :-)

Samuel Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Devotee of Christ said...

Hi Hugh,

I think you're taking my feedback to Bro Green too seriously. Speaking in terms of spiritual realms and all. I was merely giving my subjective suggestions on how I thought Bro Green's points could have been driven home more convincingly and conclusively. Again, these are my personal observations and I might be wrong. And I respect our opinion and observations as well. But many of the audience members present in the debate might have felt the same way as I did and would have wanted to pass on the same feedback. It would be very difficult to try to meet each one of them personally and explain like you're doing now. To end, if we keep defending or repelling constructive feedback every time, people might dishonestly share praises only or may hesitate to give feedback in the first place. I guess we need to listen to all, accept other views and then decide to agree or disagree. So then let's agree to disagree :-)

Devotee of Christ said...

Thanks Bro Green. Hope you continue to rock! ;-)

Isaac said...

@Devotee of Christ/Samuel Green,
Brother I fully agree with your take in the matter, and I am glad that Reverend took it in the right spirit. Rev. Green you, are a gentleman and a scholar and you demonstrate that on the stage, but I like the style of Sam Shamoun, David Wood & Pastor Usama K Dakdok’s. I had seen your previous debate where this guy brought poison in a bottle offered it to you to drink and you responded it very well.
Sometime they bring issues like Ezekiel 23:20, Isaiah 20:3, Malachi 2: 3, trinity & many such verses and I am sure you can answer from Biblical stand point of view. They will still make a mockery of our explanation and I don’t expect you to stoop to their level. I understand your position, as my father was a Pastor in India and my brother is still a Pastor, hence don’t expect you to stoop to their level to respond. Not that we can’t respond using their cheap & vulgar tactics such as used by Deedat on the birth of Jesus.
My response to some of the example above would be as under:
Ezekiel 23:20 – From Biblical point of you view you can explain being authority as to what it means, but to counter their cheap presentation; I would say that Mohammad had the strength of 30-Men and if you take into account average flesh to be 6-inches, then it would come to 15-feet long flesh. When Mohammad used to take heavenly aphrodisiac, he used to get the strength of 40-heavenly bodies. Each would have the strength of 100-men then his flesh would be 2000-feet long. Now the question is, as to how many asses or horses would have come out of him?
Birth of Jesus: Deedat had once graphically explained the birth of Jesus, as the God of Christians coming out from Mary’s private part in blood. You and I know that there is no such mention of his birth in like manner in the Bible. We all know that we are due to dual Genetic factor while Jesus’s birth based on John 1: 1-3 & 14 is clearly divine in nature, and Mary was just used as a pure vessel in God’s plan. I will even counter their claim that probably he was born through C-section and not the way Deedat graphically explained.
On the contrary Mohammad was born 4-yrs after the death of his father and Amina carried him in her stomach for 4-yrs and not 9-months, details as under:
Muhammed Son of Who?
Three Problems about the Fatherhood of Muhammad in the light of three different Groups:

1st Group: Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, Alhalabi, and many others are involved, they say Muhammed remained for 4 years in the womb of his mother Aminah which neither science nor natural law nor any miracle describe any specific reason

2nd Group: speak about 6-years birth of Muhammed after the death of his father (Abdullah), refer Islamic Encyclopedia Urdu by Munshi Mehboob Alam page 27 and 619

Group 3rd: Which is the Book of Ibn Kaseer in urdu with Title Qasa al Anbia (The story of Prophets) Page 21 that Muhammed was born from the side of his mother Aminah which means not the Private Part.

Major question is as to who made Aminah Pregnant in 4th or 6th year and who was the real Father of Muhammed because his so called father Abdallah was already dead and gone from this world after the first month of his marriage with Aminah.
God said I will not give my glory to another, Isaiah 42:8.
Jesus’ Body Was Prepared To Be Our Sacrifice (Hebrews 10:5-7)
I can go on and on, but would leave at this for now.

Baron Eddie said...

from the video at time 1:18:00 and after the Muslim debater said "there are the expert and you can not interpret for Islam, when talking about spirit and Gabriel .... etc" ...

That what Muslims do when they explain bible as they wish and they don't ask Christian expert!

Muslims put bible verses and explaine it as they wish!

I am sure that all of you have seen what I am talking about.
actually I have a Qur'an from Saudi Arabia that have an appendix for explaining Bible verses!

What is laughable that this appendix comes after a page with this Title "Hypocrisy and its various manifestation"

How appropriate ...

goethechosemercy said...

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead.

Enough said.