Debate: "Is Jesus the Son of God?" (David Wood vs. Shabir Ally)
Is Jesus the Son of God? Christians and Muslims give very different answers to this question. Can an examination of the evidence show who's right? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally give their reasons for affirming and denying the claim "Jesus is the Son of God."
I have a tremendous love for David because I believe that God has used him along others such as Sam and so on. However, I do believe he could do better in this debate if he had paid more attention to Ally argument. 1) For example Ally admits that in judaism God is considered the father of the prophets and the kings . If this statement is true and i believe it is so then the god of islam is not the same God of judaism because in sura 5:17-18 allah makes a mockery of the jews for claiming just that.(David missed that opportunity to press shabir on that).
2) Shabir said that is only in the book of John that Jesus is called the Word of God . Again, I think that David missed that opportunity to press Shabir on that . If John is wrong why 600 years later Muhammad confirms that message in Sura 4:171 and there are famous hadiths from Muhammad stating the Jesus is the Word of God. So if John is wrong so is allah then according to Shabir Christians and muslims need to look for another God.
3) Shabir said that we need to go to the Quran to find what is revealed by God in the bible but not so according to the Quran. The Quran tells us to go to the bible to validate the claim of the quran : sura 18:27, 6:115 , sura 21:7.
4) Shabir said David does not understand how in arabic people use the word "Mother" so do allah and muhammad . They don't understand how jews and christians use the term "son of God " in the Bible.,
Overall good job brother David
David, you did an excellent job with this debate.
Great job, as usual, David! God bless you for your restraint in staying on topic while Shabir went gallivanting off everywhere else. When you were debating Paul, he was debating the reliability of the New Testament. When you were debating Jesus being the Son of God, Shabir was debating the reliability of the New Testament. I wonder what he will do if the topic is ever on the reliability of the New Testament :)
Kidding aside... Methinks that next time you need to have a moderator, someone familiar with debating Muslims such as Bro Tony, to call Shabir or any other Muslim out when they stray from the agreed topic
If God does substitute revelations with something better or similar (Quran 2:106), why not accept the more divine view of Jesus in John's Gospel, which was the latest Gospel, over the more human view of Jesus in the earlier Gospels?
Haha Tolis...hell yea. Never thought of it that way before!
Well done David Wood, You are blessed by God. Your information are very important. You will be always in my prayers. Anyone knows that, Quran is fake and edited copy of Bible. The authors of Quran, stolen persons, events, and contents from Bible. They even stolen the many concepts such as heaven. Jesus is the only person, revealed about heaven after life. That muslims copied.
Once again you were phenomenal in the debates with Shabir. Dr Shabir Ally is always resorting to scholars whose opinions though, they may be important, are not factual. They are just opinions and assertions, yet that is what Shabir relies on, instead of dealing with the content of what is being debated. Resorting to scholars as the main thrust of once arguments is not very smart in my view, because these scholars may have a bias or an agenda and their opinions are just assertions with no basis in fact. For instance dealing with certain passages in the quran that allah says are clear, yet Shabir runs to scholars to find what the meaning of the passages are, and in fact as you stated in one of the debates, the way Shabir reads the quran will have him killed by the true practitioners of Islam.
You were too much for Shabir. I also noticed that Shabir resorted to subtle personal attacks that were very uncharacteristic of him and that was an indication that he was in trouble and could not defend his positions. Well done bro. The LORD is definitely using you to shed light to muslims. God bless you and may the Lord bring Shabir out of the darkness of Islam into the light of JESUS CHRIST.
I have watched this debate and it seems that Shabir Ally confused himself as well as he did not even understand the reality of the texts concerning Jesus as the Son of the living God. In David's part, job well done. It seems that he defended his position concerning to the Messiah as the Son of God and David explained very well with evidence. I pray that Shabir will see the light of the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to Mr. Wood, job well done and God bless. Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
From: Roel of Tarlac, Philippines
The title 'Son of God' in term of God The Son in my opinion is closely related with Christology which is about the Incarnated Man of the Second Person of the Godhead.
I believe that's why this title primarily describe in NT , while in OT the Second Person of Godhead was identified as 'The Word of God', so in other words Son of God in NT is The Person of The Word of God in OT made flesh.
Targums (one of the official sacred book in Judaism)recognize and even somehow in some cases seemingly DIFFERENTIATE between -the PERSON of GOD- and -the PERSON of The Word of God.
So the belief in The Second Person of Godhead has actually been in Judaism since the beginning.
The Second Person of Godhead has always been since the beginning bearing the title The Word of God as also being described in Book of Revelation.
So since 'genuine' Judaism and Christianity belief in The Word of God as the Second Person of Godhead I think the burden solely lays upon Islam to proof how can be it claims to be related and even BASED its foundation upon the former when apparently Islam is totally deviated from the true teaching of Judeo-Christianity ?
However Jesus in Quran is also described as The Word of God without any clear explanation why,since Muslim often claim the meaning is different from christian understanding where Jesus was created from Allah's word and not Jesus as The Word of God itself HOWEVER Earth, DIRT, fire ,water, time ,space and etc was also firstly created by the word of Allah so strangely on that sense LOGICALLY all of those things and especially DIRT (i like to give DIRT the stronger emphasis to show how pathetic Moslem's argument is) SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN THE SAME TITLE AS ISA The Prophet!! L.O.L
At 11:40-11: Shabbir argued that Son of God terminology was used by ancient Judaism to identify kings,prophets and nation of Israel
Based on that admission consequently means Shabbir's 'historical evaluation' acknowledges the use of this terminology by The Ancient/Genuine Judaism whom in Islamic perspective supposedly also to be Moslem.
Bro.David should've pressed Shabir on this claim by asking whether what Shabbir really meant was the supposedly Genuine OT had this terminology been written within it and then taught. Coz surely Islam absolutely rejects any notion for identifying any holy man as Son of God even if it's just metaphorical.
and at 51:57-52:03, Shabbir said IT'S FINE w/MUSLIMS in tolerating the Jews for metaphorically define someone as Son of God though muslims wouldn't say it that way.
Here it seems Shabbir gives the impression as if Islam would tolerate the way of the Jews in identifying someone as Son of God as long as it was meant metaphorically, yet in ambiguous way also giving notion that Islam would never use this terminology.
Bro.David should've pressed Shabbir to clarify what Shabbir clearly meant and on what Islamic authoritative ground that such a group who define themselves as Children of Allah/God would've been excusable from being condemned as Kaffir or heretic.
By the way this part of an article on the rulings for using Son of God terminology in Islam taken from http://islamqa.info/en/26728
Any Muslim who says, “We believe that we are all the children of Allaah” should be asked to explain what he means before any judgement is made concerning him.
1.1 – If what he means by being children is the metaphorical meaning, which is that people are dependent upon Allaah, and he is using this word for a purpose allowed in sharee’ah, such as REFUTING THE CHRISTIANS who say that the Messiah is the son of God, then there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT IF HE USES IT "ONLY" WITH CHRISTIANS IN ORDER TO SHOW THEIR BELIEF IS FALSE, BUT HE SHOULD NOT USE IT WITH OTHERS lest that generate confusion and misunderstanding. That is because one of the means of showing the Christians’ beliefs concerning ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) to be false is to use the same expressions as are mentioned in their holy Book (the Bible) to prove that others were described as “sons of God” as well as ‘Eesa, which clearly indicates that what is meant by being a son of God in the texts of the Gospels is not “sonship” in the literal sense, which St. Paul claimed for Jesus in order to lead them astray from belief in Divine Oneness (Tawheed)
The rest of the other points in that article strictly forbid the use of the terminology which leave us with the point number one which is being presented above where the conclusion is:
The Using of Son of God terminology is permitted in Islam when debating Christians though it's certainly an abomination to use it however Muslims are allowed TO PRETEND as if it was ok IN ORDER TO DECEIVE the Christians. To make it simple this means IT'S OK TO LIE & BE DECEITFUL IN ISLAM
The point is, that Bible is not Jesus true words, it's corrupted over time, It misled Christian around the world. think why we have too many religions in the world. which one is the true religion. God didn't chose all these religions(message) for our guidance. which one is it, Hindus have many Gods Idols, Buddhism worshiping Idols big Bud-ah, Judaism they even say that Ezra is God son or Christianity worshiping three Gods,or Islam believing in one God, which one makes sense or logical ,
And what is the purpose of life, why God created us in the first step. Christianity a religion without justice, what a ridicule, that you will not be judge for your action, even if you kill Innocent, what a non sense. it doesn't make sense.
what part of Jesus was God, the brain, soul or body.
Why Christians believe in the Father, son, holy spirit, not mother Mary, isn't she God mother, that means there is not respect in Christianity for God mother.
the Bible say' Roman 8;14 Says for those who are led by the spirit of God, are the children of God. even Bible contradicts your belief. that means we all God children.that means Adam was god first son.
We say the same thing, that you Christian twisted the Bible too.That Jesus never said I'm God or his son, he is the son of Mary. even Bible says referring about Jesus, that he is the son of man.God is not human, how do you know, that God looks like man? even Jesus never seen God.
you should know God characteristics, that God is one, God is the creator not creation. God does not need worldly need but Jesus did, water food oxygen, sleep, using bathroom and so on. God is the sustainer of the world, God can forgive if he wants, without sacrificing any one. Christianity is a religion without a purpose and judgement. it eliminate the purpose of God, that God said to angels I created humans to worship and believe in me that I'm one. and to associate no one with me
read Quran I"m sure you will find the truth
I know I am a late comer to the debate Is Jesus the Son of God, but after listening to the whole debate and not the sound bites that favor one viewpoint or the other. It appears to me that Mr. Ally is assessing that because the Quran says that people wrote down something and called it the Word of God when in fact it is fabrication in quoting Sura 2:80 in the Quran that it is referring to the Bible corruption. The text says that illiterate men wrote down something and called it the Word of God. This can not be in reference to the Bible which was complete and in circulation in Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa several hundered years befor Muhammad allegedly made that statement. Who was Muhammad talking about? He must of been talking about people who was seeking to make a profit or some money off of the names of the Apostles or famous disciple of Jesus and wrote down some religious ideas and assigned the name of those Apostles of Jesus and called it the word of God. In other words, Muhammad was talking against people in his day and age that was coming up with stories that the Apostles of Jesus never wrote and calling it the word of God. Here's the point I am trying to make: You can have a fradulent copy or a made up manuscript with out an original legit one. So By citing that Sura, Mr. Ally confirms that the Bible was complete and pure because who would want to copy and steal from a corrupt revelation? That would be picked off from the begining by more knowledgeable Christians and Jews. By the time Islam showed up on the scene, the Church has had several Church councils to refute heresies and establish the cannon of scripture. So if Muhammad knew that the Bible was pure and people was making up phony scriptures to sell them along or in conjunction with the pure Bible, he had the right to expose them.
This is my second point on the Debate:
Now to the point of the debate where Ally believes that the designation of Jesus being the Son of God is a latter development in the New Testament Scriptures is almost laughable. I agree with him that the Gospel of Mark being the first and earliest NT manuscript composed seem to be used by the writers of Matthew and Luke in their respective Gospels. Mr. Ally seems to think that no one knew who the Gospel writers were. In fact the church has always known who the Gospel writers were, can you imagine in the Church council of Laodicea not know who wrote what in the formation of the cannon of scripture? How on earth did they pull it off? They must of know who wrote what and had sufficient testimonial to verify that it was genuinely written by the authors. Now I recommend that you watch a video called cold Case Christianity in respect to the determination of the authenticity of the Gospels. You will find there that all the Gospels could not have been originally written after 150 AD. One reason is dead people do not write. All the Apostles died before the end of 100AD. The internal evidence of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John point to an earlier composition because certain historical facts are missing from all of them: The Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD is missing from the Gospel accounts, because it had not happened yet, even though Jesus had prophesied it. The Death of Paul, Peter, John, Mark and James the Son of Alpheus and brother of John are not reported in any of the Gospels. Why is this significant? because if Paul had died before Luke ended his Gospel and it was in relation to a Gospel even, don't you think one of the Gospel writers or one of the Apostles who have reported it? Sure they would have. What is also missing is the siege of Jerusalem that was in 68AD by the Romans. None of that information is in the Gospel records which means that all 4 Gospel accounts must have been composed prior to 70AD and at Lease 68AD. Why is this important to the idea that Jesus is the Son of God? It is because if the Gospels had been originally written after those events who is to say that we can trust what they say if they didn't report the destruction of Jerusalem which is a historical fact. No the opposite must be true, that it is reasonably plausible that all the Gospel writers originally composed their Gospels prior to 70AD or 68AD at the minimum. We know that the authors wrote their respective Gospels because of the early church fathers, the disciples of the Apostles used the Gospels extensively. so much so that if we did not have the thousands of copies of the Gospels and other New testament writings, we could with 100 percent confidence reconstruct the New Testament accurately and without deviation. It is these church fathers that identify the writers of the Gospels and the test of the New Testament. All of them testify that Jesus is the Son of God as reported to them by the Apostles of Jesus, the Christ. The early church fathers are in that 100AD to 200AD slot of time more than 160 years before the canonization of scripture by the church. So if the early church fathers called Jesus the Son of God and corroborated the testimony of the writers of the Gospels which were eye witness reports of the Gospels, there is no way that the idea that Jesus is the Son of God was "invented" at the council of Nicea in 305AD, when the early fathers and the first Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God we know now centuries prior to the canonization of the Bible.
This is my third comment on the debate:
Now Muslims believe in One God and that God is Allah, but this is a tribal Qurais determination of God's name. The original Arabic name for God is not Allah, all you have to do to find that out is research what Arabs was using in Arabic to say the word God prior to the advent of Islam and you will find that there is no correlation between the two. Now Muslim are instructed to say that they believe in the same one God as we do and they bow to him in obedience to those who do not hold their beliefs but believe in one God, like the Christians do. This seems real respectful, but it is not what seems to be. It is not an admittance to believing in the same God as Christians, rather it is a testimony that they believe in a One God called Allah. No way is the God of the Bible the God of Quran. I can get into the differences but that is getting off topic. More to the point, Mr. Ally seems to believe that Christians in more than one God. That by elevating Jesus to God-ship and classifying the Holy Spirit also as God, that Christians worship 3 Gods, that are in competition with each other for worship and adoration of the believers. No Christian believes that they worship 3 competing Gods. They believe in One God revealed in 3 persons of his entity. Christians believe in the revealed God, Muslims believe in an unrevealed God. Now why would the God of Creation would reveal himself in 3 persons only to redact the revelation of himself and tell everyone to go back serving him as one unrevealed God. No Christians are serving One God, revealed in 3 persons. The concept of this is all over the Old Testament and revealed explicitly in the New Testament. Case in point: When Peter was preaching his first sermon on the day of Pentecost he said this about Jesus: " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.… that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both LORD and CHRIST.." (Acts 2:32,36) I looked up the word Lord of the verse in the original Greek of the New Testament and discovered that the word translated "LORD" in the text means “Supreme of over all” and “God”. So Peter preached that Jesus was made like unto God by God. Now why would the God of creation do that, if Jesus was not God, in the first place? For in the Gospel record we have Jesus telling his disciples that he is going back to be with the Father God. In the Quran it says that Jesus says that blessed is the day I was born and blessed by the day that I die, blessed is the day I rise again. If no man can stand in the presence of God and live, how come in the Quran Allah raises Jesus to himself, not just to heaven but himself to his very essence? Unless, Jesus was part of God’s essence in the first place and was just going back to where he once reigned in eternity with Him. This proves that Paul was not the first Apostle to introduce Jesus as the Son of God, Peter was. This is significant because Peter, James the son of Alpheaus and his brother John were apart of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples. It is those 3 men that Jesus revealed himself to as the Son of God and guess what all three of the proclaim Jesus as the Son of God and did not recant their testimony up to the day they each died.
this is my last comment:
Finally I will close with this. You know Islam did not come up with the idea that Jesus is not the Son of God. That idea and concept showed up in the early 2nd century by a preacher named Marcion, and by another preacher called Arius. Both of their doctrines about Jesus was determined as heresies, but that didn't make them go away. The idea that Jesus is not the Son of God spread all the way to western China. Muhammad's first wife was a Nestorian Christian that believed that Jesus was just a prophet before he was nailed to the cross, and later became the Son of God after rising from the dead. Nestorians received their theology through a combination of Marcionism and Arianism and it was his first wife uncle who was an elder in the Nestorian Christian church the pronounced to Muhammad that he was a prophet, as goes the legend. So the Meccan scriptures of the Quran cannot be against Nestorian Christianity and was not, but Nestorian Christianity is a pseudo-Christian group, like the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses that do not teach what most Christians believe. In fact I discovered a contract that was made between the Muslims that ruled Baghdad and the Nestorian Church in Baghdad. Why did the Muslims let the Nestorian Christian community survive? Because they remembered how the Nestorians assisted Muhammad to prophethood and did not want that legacy to be lost. This is why Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted because they accepted the revelation that allows their prophet to lifted up above Jesus in religious status in the minds of men. Here is my question, if Muhammad is the seal or the greatest of all the prophets how come Allah did not promise to raise Muhammad to himself, to Allah’s very essence, seeing that Jesus was just a prophet like him? Was Jesus getting special treatment over Muhammad? No God raised Jesus from the dead because he was innocent in stating the fact that he was the Son of God. God raising Jesus from the dead is testament to that fact.
The Title Son of God
is indeed a designation used of the writer of the manuscript to idenfy a person or a nation has having acheived a special relationship with God. We find in the Bible that Ezekial was called Son of Man, which too is a special designation and sybolizes a special relationship with God. Adam in Luke's Gospel used the Son of God designation because Adam's existence was due to God creative ability. Israel was called God's first born, not that Israel was divine in any sense, but that Israel was the first nation that God had a special relationship. Solomon and David were both called Son's of God for the same reason, they had a personal relationship with God. The difference between Jesus and all of the ones I mentioned is that Jesus identified himself has God's biological Son and performed miracles to prove it. Jesus is the only begotten son of God, that is, he is the only son of God that God used the process of procreation that he installed in mankind to bring Jesus into the world. Not only had a special relationship with God, he was God's biological son. Now many Muslims make the mistake that God had to have a wife in order to participate in the procreation process, but if God only has to say a word and it is done, why couldn't he choose the process of procreation and have a son? my point is if God can not have a son, he can not be the creator of life, if he is not the creator of life he is not God. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God because God is creator and in his infinite wisdom and to fulfill prophecy chose to have a son. Now it seems that Mr. Ally was implying that the Quran was suggesting that when it says that Allah cannot have a Son or beget a son, that Allah was saying that he can not have a human son. Well Mr. Ally, you did it again. You just proved to me that Allah is not the creator God that he is claimed to be, for if Allah can not have a son if he chooses to through the process of procreation, then Allah can not be God.
Post a Comment