The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 3

 The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 3]

Analyzing deity of Christ under the light of John 17:3

Question Mark

In Part 1 of the True Shahada Indeed series we dealt with issues which were accidental or not immediately related to the point of disagreement, that is, John 17:3. In Part 2 of the same series we proved that Muslims can and should appeal to John 17:3 to prove seemingly Semitic monotheism of biblical prophets withstanding that “text speaks of the father”.

In Islam there cannot be any ghastly sin than worshipping Jesus (peace be upon him) (#fn1) besides/with Allah (SWT). However, for some Christian sects it is a cardinal point in their faith to worship Jesus, peace be upon him, as their God Almighty; that there cannot be any salvation without this assumption.

Such being the case, this paper, which is the third installment in the series, would be of paramount importance because it would be analyzing the deity of Christ, peace be upon him.

The scope of the paper would be to refute all the “proofs” put forth by Rogers who thinks he worships the same God worshipped by all prophets, who was ironically circumcised on the 8th day (!), peace be upon all of them. 

Logically Illogical

To negate Muslim appeal of monotheism through John 17:3, Rogers produced his so thought logical illustration…to try and make the point easier to apprehend”.

Somewhere down the line he thinks that John 17:3 minus his “illustration” is Rocket Science!

Anyhow, he produced his “illustration” of “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” which was thoroughly refuted under “Where is the catch” section of the TRUE SHAHADA INDEED.

Although his article is “A Reply to “The True Shahada Indeed” – Part Three”, however, he never replied to our breakdown of his “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” illustration! Moreover, he brought up an entirely new perspective to his “illustration”; that of the absence of the adjective “alone”. We would consider even this later in this paper but for time being we note that he has not responded directly and distinctively to our refutation of his “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” argument.

All that he had to offer was the following sapless, self – styled and biblically unsupported response:

“Given a Trinitarian metaphysic the only legitimate way the deity of Christ could be ruled out is if the text said, “The Father alone is the only true God.” It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

Firstly, no matter which Christian metaphysic one abides by, however, s/he needs to restrict himself to the scriptures, that is, Bible. And we would, Allah – willing shortly experience that no Christian metaphysic, “Trinitarian” or otherwise, supports Rogers’ claim that “deity of Christ could be ruled out if the text said, “The Father alone is the only true God.”” The biblical verse Rogers brought up, that is, John 10:30, to support his branded “Trinitarian metaphysic” does not support his case as we would soon realize in the subsequent section(s).

Secondly, Rogers’ explanation that “only” does not “modify the predicate term of the major premise” is unsupported by any evidence. Such an explanation is at best his very own personalized explanation uncorroborated through any biblical verse, nevertheless, if Rogers’ is itching for John 10:30 then he should have patience until we examine it in the subsequent section(s).

Or else, Rogers should provide us reason(s) why we should believe his branded explanation that biblical word “only” does not “modify the predicate term of the major premise”, especially when the biblical proof (John 10:30) he bases his explanation on, cripples on a closer examination:

Christ is yet not God – Almighty

For Rogers Muslim argument against the deity of Christ, peace be upon him, is “fallacious” because:

“…the Muslim argument against Christ’s deity at this point rests on argumentation that is fallacious. The argument goes like this:

The Father is the only true God;

Jesus is not the Father;

Therefore, Jesus is not the only true God.

To infer such a conclusion from the above premises is fallacious because it assumes that Jesus is not one with the Father, which begs the question against the Christian understanding of the Trinity, and flatly contradicts what Jesus said in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” (Bold emphasize ours) In other words, inferring the above conclusion from the stated premises fails to take into account the unique features of Trinitarian ontology or the fact that the Father and the Son are distinct persons but not different gods or beings. In other words, although Jesus is not the person of the Father, they are one in essence, and thus both can be the only true God.”

Specifically, Rogers’ arguments for the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) are:

  1. Father and Jesus (peace be upon him) “are one”.
  2. Father and Son are one in essence.

Let us examine the above arguments to analyze the weight in them.

Father and Jesus (peace be upon him) “are one”

This over used Christian quotation of John 10:30 could be easily responded rhetorically through other biblical quotations; consider this biblical quotation, for instance:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (King James (1611), John 17:21-22, Capital and Bold emphasize ours)

Or

“I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in US, just as you are in me and I am in you…I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one:” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-22, TEV, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

In this particular citation Jesus (peace be upon him) invests the same “oneness” to the people as he has with father. He expressly inducts his people in their (father and Jesus) oneness. There is just no difference between the “oneness” between him and father and the “oneness” that Jesus (peace be upon him) wants to have between him, father and people. This clearly refutes Rogers’ argument that because Jesus (peace be upon him) and father “are one” so Jesus is God – Almighty otherwise and conversely if Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty since he is “one” with father then sadly to the chagrin of Christianity many others would have to be accommodated in the space between father and Jesus, peace be upon him.

In other words, if our conclusion and inference of John 17:3 that Jesus is not God – Almighty “flatly contradicts what Jesus said in John 10:30” then John 17:21-22 “begs the question against the Christian understanding of the Trinity” for they should somehow accommodate the then followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the trinity transmuting it to “multi-nity”.

Rogers’ problem does not seizes here since even if we take his much celebrated verse, namely, John 10:30 separately and not in relation with any other verse of the Bible yet it would not be proven that Christ was God – Almighty because the context of John 10:30 will militate against all such (im)possibilities:

Context of John 10:30

The preceding few verse of John sets the context for John 10:30. Jesus, peace be upon him, states that he is the shepherd of his flock and therefore he would provide them all the security they need, in other words, because Jesus’ (peace be upon him) sheep follow him (verse 27), “…they shall never perish” (verse 28) and therefore no man would be able to pluck them (his sheep) out of his hand.

It is the obedience of Jesus’ people to his commandments that saves them and circumvents them to be “plucked off”.

A step further, because Jesus’ (peace be upon him) words and commandments are not his own but of his father’s (see, John 14:24) therefore by following Jesus they are indirectly following father and thus “no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” (verse 29). And thus we see a “oneness” of purpose in the verse! This was expressly cited by famous Bible commentator Darby:

“If the Son has accomplished the work, and takes care of the sheep, IT WAS THE FATHER WHO GAVE THEM TO HIM. The Christ may perform a divine work, AND FURNISH A MOTIVE FOR THE FATHER’S LOVE, BUT IT WAS THE FATHER WHO GAVE IT HIM TO DO.  THEIR LOVE TO THE SHEEP IS ONE, as those who bear that love are one.” (Darby’s Commentary, Joh 10: 1-42, Bold, Italics, Capital and Underline emphasize ours)

Notice that according to commentator Darby, the “oneness” being (allegedly) said by Jesus (peace be upon him) is the “oneness” of love. Both Jesus (peace be upon him) and father love the flock and therefore they are one or expressly “their love to the sheep is ONE”. In other words Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one in purpose.

We might contemplate, for instance, the love of parents; the mother and the father love their child does not mean that mother and father are one! Their love for the child may be one, nevertheless.

The author of “Jesus Christ” writes to prove that Jesus and father were “one” because of their “oneness” of work or purpose:

“This charge of blasphemy arose as a result of Jesus’ having said: “I and the Father are one.” (Joh 10:30) THAT THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE FATHER OR TO BE GOD IS EVIDENT FROM HIS REPLY, already partly considered. The oneness to which Jesus referred must be understood in harmony with the context of his statement. He was speaking of his works and his care of the “sheep” who would follow him. His works, as well as his words, demonstrated that there was unity, not disunity and disharmony, between him and his Father, a point his reply went on to emphasize. As regards his “sheep,” he and his Father were likewise at unity in their protecting such sheep like ones and leading them to everlasting life. (Joh 10:27-29; compare Eze 34:23, 24.) Jesus’ prayer on behalf of the unity of all his disciples, including future ones, shows that the oneness, or union, between Jesus and his Father was not as to identity of person but as to purpose and action.” (Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours.)

Inferably then, Jesus and father “are one” in love, purpose and/or work (and not in essence we would elaborate it shortly).

Lest Rogers and others would impute us of our own interpretation of the context of John 10:30 we quote you more classical Christian scholars and commentators on this particular verse disabusing all the claims of the tri-theist(s).

Furthermore it is Rogers typical thinking and shallow grasp of his own scripture that he writes John 10:30 proves that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are “one” because, otherwise, there are umpteen scholars who still doubt the precise nature of the “oneness” being talked about in John 10:30. Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer are only to name a few of them:

I and my Father are one – The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. IT EXPRESSES UNION, BUT NOT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE UNION. IT MAY EXPRESS ANY UNION, AND THE PARTICULAR KIND INTENDED IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE CONNECTION. IN THE PREVIOUS VERSE HE HAD SAID THAT HE AND HIS FATHER WERE UNITED IN THE SAME OBJECT THAT IS, IN REDEEMING AND PRESERVING HIS PEOPLE. IT WAS THIS THAT GAVE OCCASION FOR THIS REMARK.  Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction.” (Barnes’ Commentary, Joh 10:30, Capital, Bold and Underline emphasize ours except for the first phrase)

Note yet again that the celebrated Christian scholar Barnes along with other scholars doubts the union or sharing of divinity through John 10:30 which Rogers so untenably quotes. All that Barnes suggest is the common or “one” purpose of the two – that of saving the people. That being the suggestion we should not forget that all prophets came to save their/the people from Adam to Mohammad, peace be upon them.

If the common or “one” purpose is to be construed as Rogers interprets it to prove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) then all the biblical prophets needs to be worshipped categorically.

A step further, Jamison Faucet (JFB), another leading proponent of Bible commentary expressly denies what Rogers cherishes to interpret – The oneness of “essence” of Jesus (peace be upon him) and father:

I and my Father are one — Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. “Are” is in the masculine gender – “we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter – “one thing.PERHAPS “ONE INTEREST” EXPRESSES, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father’s hands, as if they had not been given out of them. “Neither have they,” says He; “though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever – they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for he and I have all in common.” Thus it will be seen, that, THOUGH ONENESS OF ESSENCE IS NOT THE PRECISE THING HERE AFFIRMED, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true.” (JFB’s commentary, Joh 10:30, Underline, Bold and Italics emphasize ours except the first phrase)

Moreover, we would like to quote how cogently Sheikh Jalal Abualrub of www.islamlife.com had responded to this hackneyed argument of John 10:30 raising a new set of problems to Christian tri – theists:

            “I and my father are one” (John 10:30).
 

Christians claim that this statement proves that Jesus is one or united with God and, consequently, Jesus is God.  However, when Jesus died, he did not give up the Father, he only gave up the ghost, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost” (Mark 15:37). 

This claimed unity was not available to Jesus when he died; what happened to this unity and why did not the Father die when Jesus died, if Jesus and the Father are one? 

 Hopefully, no one will claim that when Jesus said that he and the Father are one, it was Jesus the human not Jesus the divine who said it.  It this is suggested, then one would be saying that God is human.  And where is the Holy Ghost in John 10:30?  He is missing, again.  Key-Word: Twinity!
It seems the unity between God and Jesus can include many more people.  Jesus is claimed to have said, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:21-23).  If, as we are told, John 10:30 proves that Jesus is God, then, John 17:21-23 prove that the disciples and possibly many other people are also God.  Also, if God and Jesus are one, why would Jesus keep calling himself, ‘My God’: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17)?  The Quran states that Prophet `Esa said,
{Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allâh I) did command me to say: “Worship Allâh, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things.} (5:117) (Source, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Lastly, we would like to re – visit Rogers’ argument of “one essence” of Jesus and father but before that take note once again that according to, Jamison Faucet, “oneness of essence” is not affirmed.

There are many differences between Jesus and father even on the grounds of “essence” and at the end of this section one would only think that which “essence” do the Christian apologists brag which is one and the same between Jesus (peace be upon him) and father:

  1. Firstly, Jesus (peace be upon him), did not had any idea of the hereafter or of future event(s). Specifically, he did not knew the “hour”:

He, peace be upon him, clearly said:

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32, Bold emphasize ours)

Notice how carefully and humbly (biblical) “Son of God” has distinguished himself from “Father”.

If the essence of Jesus (peace be upon him) would have been the same with father then he must have known the hour.

  1. God is not a creation. He is separate from His creation – He is the Creator, however, Jesus was created, he was made:

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE of a woman, MADE under the law,” (Galatians 4:4, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

Thus, in essence Jesus was a creation, nevertheless biblical God was the Creator:

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:18, Bold emphasize ours)

And,

“For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth,…” (Amos 4:13, Bold emphasize ours)

In the entire Bible we do not find a single verse which unequivocally states that Jesus created any of the creations made by God. Surely, for the essence of creation, Jesus (peace be upon him) lacked way behind God as a true prophet and servant; not a Co – Creator.

  1. If Jesus would have been one in essence with father then he would have never denied the attribute of goodness vested on him:

“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:17-18, Bold emphasize ours)

For many scholars the “Goodness” stated in the above cited verse alludes to perfection. However, Jesus (peace be upon him) diverted it to God alone because he knew that he was not perfect to the same extent or “essence” to blaspheme God.

  1. Tri – theist Christians claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a mixture of humanity and divinity, at the same time! For them, when he was answering nature’s (#fn2) call his divine part used to hide out somewhere and would re – appear when he used to finish his purpose.

However, on other instances, the divine Jesus (peace be upon him) used to manifest his divinity through words such as “I and the Father are one.” The problem is that such an apology does not take into consideration biblical verses such 1 John 4:12:

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” (Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

Christians would incessantly apologize that it was Jesus (peace be upon him) – the god who gave life back to Lazarus or it was divine Jesus (peace be upon him) who uttered “I and the Father are one.”

Nevertheless, such an understanding contradicts 1 John 4:12 because people saw and watched Jesus (peace be upon him) saying “I and the Father are one”, they saw Jesus (peace be upon him) – The mistaken god, giving life to Lazarus (we would like to add, “By God’s permission”), however, as per 1 John 4:12 none at no time has seen god (Remark the important phrase “at any time” 1 John 4:12).

It is the faulty understanding of Christian apologists that engenders contradiction between John 10:30 and 1 John 4:12. Since “I and the Father are one” of John 10:30 neither mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one nor can it be inferred. On the other hand, according to principle set by 1 John 4:12, God cannot be seen. This visionary “essence” of divine collides head on with the presumptuous assumption that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one in essence.

  1. Another “essence” which finds difference between Jesus (peace be upon him) and father is that of “immortality”. Bible clearly states that God is immortal:

Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” (1Timothy 6:16, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, died and thus was a mortal, and the fact that the verse adds that “no man hath seen” (Jesus (peace be upon him) was visible) the ONLY immortal proves that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not of the same essence of the father.

If Rogers think that he would reply back with the same absurd and face hiding reply that Jesus (peace be upon him) the man died (not the god) then he should take into account that it was the same mouth, the same organs, through which, according to tri – theist Christianity boast that Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed divinity through the words “I and the Father are one” ceased to work or else died.

Actually, Rogers cannot play the coward game that when it suits his end of proving Jesus (peace be upon him) god – he becomes god, and when Jesus (peace be upon him) bleeds or sweats he becomes man!

There are numerous other facts which prove that Jesus, peace be upon him, was not God, however, we keep them for a more fitting place when we would analyze the divinity of Christ (peace be upon him) in our future papers, God willing. For now, it is verifiably established that Jesus and father were not of the same essence – a myth unsupported through Bible.

The Polytheism between “Only and Alone”

The next argument which would be analyzing could be called as an apotheosis of straw man argument. We would observe how Rogers tries to canvass his polytheism between the dexterity of the words “Only” and “Alone”. We would soon read how he would fuss that the text has used “Only”; it should have used both “Only” and “Alone” in order that restrict father alone in the godhead – all to prove how childish his arguments are. He wrote:

“Given a Trinitarian metaphysic the only legitimate way the deity of Christ could be ruled out is if the text said, “The Father alone is the only true God.” It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

Here Rogers has provided us a way how we could disprove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) from his standards which we would do, God willing. Nevertheless, we would like to first consider other important points here.

Since Rogers is playing with words and twisting text. We will re – produce John 17:3.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

In the first place, notice once again that between the person of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the person of father – the person of father is the “ONLY” true God since the pronoun “thee” specifically refers to the person of father. This is further corroborated by the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) distinguishes himself, in the same text, from the father by stating, “AND JESUS CHRIST whom THOU hast sent”.

Notice that once Jesus (peace be upon him) has qualified the person of father “ONLY” to be the “true God” he did not continue it for himself. He did not state that I am also “ONLY” true God for Jesus (peace be upon him) knew that it would be an irrevocable contradiction.

To continue on the above argumentation, if the person of father is the “ONLY” true God then, firstly, all other persons are immediately ruled out of divinity and secondly, Rogers’ statement is met, “The Father alone is the only true God.”

Secondly, Rogers’ argument is based purely on “Trinitarian Ontology”, as he himself mentions it. The weakness of argumentation that the text should have mentioned that father alone is the only true God lies in the basis of Trinitarian supposition. Why does Rogers expect us to look into biblical texts through his “Trinitarian Ontology” glasses? Because otherwise his argument would fall apart,

  1. Rogers has assumed us to believe that Christian godhead comprises of three persons which, as we have seen in glimpses above in, “Christ is yet not God – Almighty” section, is biblically unsupported.
  1. “The Father alone is the only true God.” From the construction of the ‘test’ sentence it is clear that when Rogers says that our case would have been valid had the text shown that Father “alone” is “only true God” he stresses the fact that the word “alone” should have excluded all other heads from the Christian godhead.

For him the adjective “only” does not exclude Jesus to include Father “alone” which is, at best, stark, by any stretch of English language. Trinitarians should notice the separation which Jesus (peace be upon him) puts between him and father when he attributes father to be the “ONLY” true God through the usage of the pronoun “thee”.

Notice once again that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not continue to say something like father is the “ONLY” true God and Jesus is the “ONLY” true God and Ghost (‘holy’) is the “ONLY” true God but Rogers did!:

“i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”

This further exposes that how desperately Rogers wants to read texts into his scriptures to support his flimsy case unsupported through so called scriptures.

It is for this reason that if we keep aside the so called “Trinitarian Ontology” and let the texts speaks for them then they would certainly voice against all such “Trinitarian Ontology”.

Thirdly, we would now provide Rogers his die hard word “alone” from his Christian sources which would undoubtedly establish Rogers demand that “The Father alone is the only true God.”

A perusal of the Greek text reveals that the word used for “only” was “monon”. Surprisingly, according to Strong’s Note numbered G3441, “monon” means “remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:–alone, only, by themselves”. Therefore, “monon” does mean “alone”.

 

A step further, “monon” is not restricted to its usage in John 17:3, nevertheless, it can be found rigged all over the Bible, John 16:32, for instance:

“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”(King James (1611) Bible. Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

From the above adduced verse the biblical usage of the word “alone” or “monon” can be easily grasped. Notice that in the first place, (a) Jesus (peace be upon him) complains that every man shall leave him “alone”, in other words, he would be absolutely alone without any man for or with him. Similarly, when Jesus (peace be upon him) says that …thee the only (alone) true God,” he means that father is absolutely alone without any other deity with him.

The second part of the above cited verse is even more interesting; (b) Jesus (peace be upon him) says that because Father is with him therefore he is not alone, “and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. Conversely, if Father was not with Jesus (peace be upon him), he (Jesus, peace be upon him) would have been alone i.e., Jesus (peace be upon him) without Father! Therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) refers to father as “only/alone” he segregates himself from father.

In conclusion then, “alone” has been used in Bible, specifically, John 16:32, by Jesus, peace be upon him, to restrict persons.

Another very interesting example for the usage of “alone” can be found at 1 John 5:6.

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (King James (1611) Bible. Bold and italics emphasize ours)

The Greek word used for “only” is again “monon”. Out of the two things with which Jesus (peace be upon him) came, the text makes it clear, that he did not come with “water only”. In other words the usage of the word “only” in the text clearly would have separated Jesus with water alone leaving behind blood had he come with water only? This fact is further supported through the construction of the sentence to accommodate blood as well – “and blood”. Notice how “and” completes the two things with which Jesus (peace be upon him) came, biblically.

Now let us make an analogy of 1 John 5:6 with John 17:3. In John 17:3 we had, according to Trinitarian interpretation, two persons, father and Jesus (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, in 1 John 5:6 we have two substances, namely, water and blood:

a)      In 1 John 5:6, in a sense, water is separated from blood through the statement “not by water only”; the separation is reached through the usage of the word “only”. Similarly, in John 17:3, father – the only true God, has to be separated from Jesus (peace be upon him) through the usage of the same word “only” or “alone”.

b)      Moreover, in 1 John 5:6, “blood” was joined with “water” through the usage of the conjunction “and”, “…but by water and blood”. Notice that it is the usage of the same “and” which puts separation between “water” and “blood”. On the same lines, “and” puts a separation between – “the only true God” and Jesus, “…know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ”

To infer, we have the usage of the key words “only” and “and” in 1 John 5:6 that puts a separation between the substance of “water” and “blood”. Similarly, and logically, the same key words “only” and “and” will have to put a separation between the person of “Father” and “Jesus” (peace be upon him).

Now, when the separation of person has been established in John 17:3 then, inferably, “thee the only true God” has to distinctively and separately allude to father.

Matthew 17:8

“And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only

When people had lifted up their eyes they found Jesus (peace be upon him) only, in other words we can say that they saw none but Jesus alone. Their affirmation that they saw Jesus (peace be upon him) only, indirectly meant that they saw none beside.

People were not seeing father or ghost but Jesus (peace be upon him) only, and how do we know; we know it through the usage of the word “only” thus, the usage of the word “only” discards all other persons of the Trinitarian theology.

Similarly, the same “only” also discards all other persons from the position of the “only true God” in John 17:3.

Another biblical verse which would bring forth the true meaning and import of the word “only” is found at Mark 6 verse 8. It reads:

“And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The commandment to carry a staff only negated the carriage of scrip, bread or money. Generally, appurtenances such as bread and money are essential to undertake any journey; however, the usage of the word “only” discarded them all. Similarly, as per Trinitarian (fallacious) interpretation, although father, Jesus (peace be upon him) and ghost (holy) might form family of god (!) yet the usage of the word “only” restricts the same to father alone.

Conclusively, if “monon” means “alone”, then by substituting it in Roger’ statement we have, “The Father is (the) alone true God” where the application of the word alone, according to Bible, is to segregate persons.

Therefore, whether we have alone or only the crux of the matter is that Father is the only/alone true God which the Christians should be worshipping.

Brushing on the already refuted argument of Socrates – Man – Mortal, Rogers wrote that:

“It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

We would like to state once again that the readers must visit “Where is the Catch” section of our first refutation TRUE SHAHADA INDEED.

At this instant only three queries would expose the weakness in Roger’ argument:

Firstly, why should we believe Rogers explanation that “not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.” After all, it is the turn of which ghost (holy) to inspire Rogers?

Secondly, why should we trump the many biblical usages of the word “only” produced above which speak the opposite of Rogers supposed explanation to save the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Lastly, to make our query redundant, why can not the word “only” modify the predicate term of the major premise? (Given that Rogers weak argument of John 10:30 has already been answered.)

We expect better responses from Rogers in his future installments.

Rogers admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty

In his original paper Rogers gave a criterion meeting which would prove the denial of the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him:

“Things would be different if the text said “only Father is God”, or “the Father alone is the only true God”, but it does not.”

We have already dealt with this criterion to the embarrassment of Rogers under the section “Roger(s) admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty” of our original paper. Here we would respond to the criterion once again and we would also reply to Rogers comments on this issue. The response here would be different from what we have already responded earlier so a reading of former is desirable.

As can be clearly seen, through Rogers confession, that the denial of Jesus’ deity (peace be upon him) could be achieved if the text would have read “only Father is God”, now to the chagrin of Trinitarian polytheists the text exactly speaks the same. Here is a terse explanation and proof.

John 17:3 reads:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

One does not need to be a doctor of divinity to construe our point! The archaic pronoun “THEE”, as use in the text, alludes directly and distinctly to the father; no Trinitarian would deny this. That being the case, if we substitute subject “father” for the pronoun “THEE” we get:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know FATHER the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Peace be upon him)

If we pander back to Rogers’ demand which was that the text should have read “only Father is God” (to make him monotheist) and compare it with our above deduction, that FATHER the only true Godthen, they both turn out to be one and the same! Rogers must turn a true monotheist now.

What is even more stark for Rogers is his two ironically similar statements:

            “Things would be different if the text (that is, John 17:3) said “only Father is God”,”

And

“The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls (in John 17:3) “the only true God” is the Father”

It seems that the sub – title which Rogers chose “Fuzzy-Wuzzy Wuz A Muzzy” suits more to his arguments yet he had the temerity to call our arguments as “bogus”.  As a matter of fact we will now show readers what can be called as hilariously bogus argument.

Contemplating content that he has saved his polytheism, Rogers continued to write:

“…he quotes me saying that the only true God is the Father, something entirely consistent with classical Trinitarian monotheism, i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”

The immediate trouble with such a weak argument are that (a)the essence of the word “only” and its biblical usage is militated against once somebody claim only true God is the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.” Three beings, entirely different, can not possess an exclusive and only position of divinity. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him), according to Trinitarian understanding, is a complete god, father is also a complete god so is ghost (holy). Three complete, absolute, and different gods cannot be entitled as the “only true God”; it has to be one of them, to say the least. 

Rogers thinks that his confused arguments were textually supported, for he wrote:

i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons. It is also entirely consistent with the Johannine corpus, which calls the Father the only true God, as it does here in John 17:3, and the Son the only true God, as it does in 1 John 5:20.

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.1 (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

It is absolutely erroneous to impute divinity to Jesus (peace be upon him) through 1 John 5:20 since the important pronouns “HIM” and “HIS” has to refer to father only lest “HIS Son Jesus Christ” would be absurd in its import.

Furthermore, according to the Today’s English Version (TEV), the same verse reads:

“We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God – in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and this is eternal life.” (Italics emphasize ours)

According to TEV rendering whoever the pronoun “Him” refers to is the True God and from the second part of the verse we learn that “Him” has to refer to father since “His” refers to father’s son. Since all the pronouns refer to father, therefore, the protagonist of the phrase: “This is the true God” has to be father. Plus, observantly, Jesus (peace be upon him) has never been entitled as “GOD”, however, father has been, John 17:3, for instance.

Rogers further tried to prove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) through the usage of the “Eternal Life” title found in the verse:

“This understanding is confirmed in the context of the epistle by the fact that “this one” is called “the true God and eternal life,” a title used for Jesus in the opening prologue of the epistle: “…the eternal life that was with the Father.”

We have already shown that “this one” refers to father and not to Christ (peace be upon him), however, the two words, i.e. “eternal life” is not used as any title but as a phenomenon or way. This can be concluded from TEV rendering where “eternal life” is preceded by “this is”. “This is eternal life” refers to the acknowledgement of (a)the arrival of biblical “Son of God”, (b)the recognition of “True God” through him and (c)the passage of a life in union with the “True God” AND “His Son”.

Any person would have “eternal life” if he possess the aforementioned three qualities. Thus, “eternal life” as used in the text is an achievement to be courted and not a title to be imputed.

Rogers decisively writes in footnote number 1 that according to Greek grammar rules “this” refers to Jesus (peace be upon him):

“The word translated “This [is]” in some versions is a pronoun that refers to a person and is better translated as “this one”. Furthermore, according to the usual rules of Greek grammar and syntax, the pronoun “this one” refers back to the nearest antecedent, which in this case is Jesus.”

He forgot for a moment that the bulk of New Testament Scholars are still confused for the subject to whom the pronoun refers to:

This is the true God – o There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote antecedent – referring to God, as such. (Barnes’ commentary, Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)”

Barnes inadvertently also refutes Rogers for his boasts of Greek grammar rules:

I admit that his argument is NOT ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote;”

Notice that for Barnes it is not absolutely decisive that the pronoun refers to which person! And the pronoun may refer to remote antecedents as well. Hope Rogers would do a better research next time to take some Greek classes. 

Family Of gods!

In the process to call the kid who was circumcised on the eighth day (biblical) as God – Almighty (peace be upon him), Rogers came out with an absolutely grotesque argument if not blasphemous. For him, how can you not have a divine son when his father is divine (peace be upon him).

after all, if God is not the Father, then neither can Jesus be the divine Son of the Father. And so, Anonymous has it backwards; affirming the deity of the Father is an implicit affirmation of the deity of Christ, the Son; you simply can’t have a divine Father without a divine Son or a divine Son without a divine Father.” (Bold, Italics emphasize ours)

It has become Rogers’ habit to come out with tenuous arguments which only further jeopardizes his position and the above citation is just another example of it.

The principal argument that one cannot have a divine father without a divine son begs enquiries to the many biblical, none divine sons, Solomon (peace be upon him) for instance,  interspersed all over the Bible:

  1. “I will be his Father, and he shall be my SON. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” (2 Samuel 7:14, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “I will be his Father, and he shall be my SON: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:” (1 Chronicles 17:13, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my SON, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” (1 Chronicles 12:10, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “And he said unto me, Solomon thy SON, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my SON, and I will be his Father.” (1 Chronicles 28:6, King James (1611), Bible) (Capital and Bold emphasizes ours)

Moreover, what makes Rogers argument blasphemous and pagan like is the fact the Mary (May Allah be pleased with her), according to Rogers think process, must also be divine for if a divine father cannot beget a none divine son so should be with the mother; a none divine mother cannot sire a divine son thus, Rogers “has it backwards”.

 He along with Trinitarians should either accept Jesus (peace be upon him) to be none divine and a mere human being or worship Mary (May Allah be pleased with her) along with father, Jesus (peace be upon him) and ghost (holy) and convert to quad – theists.

No wonder in Islam Allah (SWT) who is All – Knowledgeable and is Most – Forbearing pre-empted all Pagan-Christian notion of God having sons, daughters, wives etc. In a nut shell, Allah (SWT) obviated all worldly and/or humanistic relationships to His sublime Self:

“And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: HE HAS TAKEN NEITHER A WIFE NOR A SON” (The Holy Qur’an 72:3, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

“Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah though Allah did create the Jinns; and THEY FALSELY HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ATTRIBUTE TO HIM SONS and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!. (The Holy Qur’an, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a SON!”

Indeed ye have put forth A THING MOST MONSTROUS!

At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.

 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah)Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as A SERVANT.” (The Holy Qur’an 17:88, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that the last verse besides repudiating all non – sense arguments of sons to Allah also establishes the true status of every being besides Allah to Allah. The status of every being, Jesus (peace be upon him) included, to Allah is as good as servant.

Further in the same argument he charged us of having nullified the deity of Allah (SWT):

“let him look no further than his own words where he admitted that, according to “Muslim exegesis,” the passage teaches that “The only true God is father”. Now that is an admission. Here is what follows: since the only true God is the Father, and since Muslims anathematize divine paternity in this sense, as Mr. Anonymous also previously admitted, then according to the Bible, Christian exegesis, and Anonymous’ own words, Allah is not the only true God.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

 Once again Rogers has exposed his uncouth and childish polemical abilities. Very unsuccessfully he has tried to blend the Qur’anic concept of Allah with Muslims with biblical concept of God with Christians. For Muslim exegetes it is more important that Christians be extricated from the mire of worship of three gods rather than carp, in the first place, whether or not God can be referred as father.

When we wrote that according to Muslim exegesis the only true God is father we meant it in relation to the first person in the god head, as “little children” understand it. The logical fallacy committed in generalizing it with Muslims as well would not take into account that in Islamic theology we do not have absurd and pagan concepts of persons in god head. So, when we said that the only true God is Father according to Muslim exegeses we meant it for Christians only, in Christian context; – who worship three beings.

Re-read our response and pay care to the thought process and flow of the response to learn that we meant Muslim exegesis of the Bible for Christian would be that biblical God who is entitled as father is the only true God. The point that out of the two protagonists of the biblical verse John 17:3, namely, Father and Jesus, whoever Father is – is the only true God. We never said that according to the Muslim exegesis of The Qur’an or authentic Hadith Father is only true God. It is a blatant misinformation and distortion of our argument.

Moreover, Rogers would have to edify which sense is he talking about in his statement Muslims anathematize divine paternity in this SENSE”? If it is the crude sense then Muslims do anathematize it and Rogers is expected to do the same. However, if it is about paternal care, protection etc in a transcendent and unmatchable sense which will suit to His might then we do not abhor it but we would still not entitle Allah as “father” since neither had He called Himself with such a title nor has He inspired Mohammad (peace be upon him) to entitle Him so. We look forward for a response from Rogers.

Lastly, Rogers has certainly not read our Part – 2 of the series for this had been dealt therein.

Proofs Serving No Cause

In an attempt to aggravate the straw – man argument of the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) from John 17:3; Rogers puts forth other biblical verse viz., 1 John 2:23 and John 5:23. We wish to state once again here that 1 John 2:23 and John 5:23, for Rogers, should serve to prove deity of Christ in conjunction with John 17:3. Nevertheless, we would soon observe that most part of Rogers’ response does not even come close to prove deity of Christ (peace be upon him), biblically.

1 John 2:23 reads:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (Italics emphasize ours)

For Rogers there is enough “close association” between Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father which would engender the sin of “Shirk” in Islam which otherwise is a positive proof for tri-theists to worship Jesus, peace be upon him:

“It is sufficient in this regard to note just two examples: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23)”;… This kind of close association between the Father and the Son is tantamount to the sin of shirk in Islamic theology (were it not true), and if it is not, then nothing is.” (Italics emphasize ours)

In the first place take heed that the text speaks of some kind of acknowledgment of Jesus (peace be upon him). When the preceding verse to the verse under citation is read it clarifies that the acknowledgment is the recognition of Jesus (peace be upon him) as Messiah:

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus IS THE CHRIST? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22, Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

The office of Messiah ship was conferred by none other but biblical Father. Therefore, what logically flows is the denial of “acknowledgment” of Jesus (peace be upon him) as Messiah is indirectly a denial or not acknowledging the Father. We had already expounded this explanation in our original refutation:

“A1. Biblical context of 1 John 2:23.


Kindly read the verse preceding 1 John 2:23, i.e., verse 22, to know that anybody denying the “Messiah ship” of Jesus, peace be upon him is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him, “Who, then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ – he rejects both the Father and Son.”(TEV)

Various points needs to be immediately noted here. Firstly, denying Messiah ship of Son is the rejection of Father. Secondly, why is the denial of Messiah ship of Son tantamount to gainsaying Father! Why? It is because it was God’s (Father) eternal plan to crown Jesus, peace be upon him, with the exclusive title of Messiah and to send him in the world. Remember Messiah (Jesus), peace be upon him, was send in this world by Father


“… I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 5:30, NKJV)(Emphasis Added)


And again,


“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority!” (REVELATION 12:10)(Emphasis Mine)


Conclusively denying Jesus, peace be upon him, got to be denial of Father who dispatched Jesus, peace be upon him, on this earth. OR, if this is not the explanation for the combined denial of Father and Son, then, you would have to agree with me that Father was also Messiah!”
  (True Shahada Indeed)

We further supplemented the above rationale with a practical example:

“Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condoleezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!”

To the above reasoning Rogers replied back with three outlandish rationales:

“First, in the name of following the context Mr. Anonymous fails to follow the flow of thought, for according to John anyone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah is denying the Son, and anyone who denies the Son is denying the Father. It is because a denial that Jesus is the Messiah is a denial of the Son, that a denial that Jesus is the Messiah is tantamount to a denial of the Father. In other words, Sonship is the crucial, all-determinative link between the two. The connection is simple enough:

To deny that Jesus is the Messiah  →  is to deny the Son

To deny the Son  →  is to deny the Father.”

Even if we act magnanimously to accept what Rogers said, we, however, yet do not (and will not) find how Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine from the above argument! Since Messiah denied is son denied is father denied; but how is son of Mary (peace be upon him) God – Almighty proved!? We are yet to see that and we are well into third part of this series!

Barnes, a leading proponent of Bible commentary, while commentating on 1 John 2:23 jeopardizes Rogers’ case to support “Mr. Anonymous…an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him” in that a denial of “Son” is tantamount to denial of “Father” because it is through the “Son” that the “Father” was made known:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father – That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known to people, Mat_11:27; Heb_1:2-3, and it is only through him that we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of His favor.” (Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Observe that according to Barnes, because the “Son of God” had the “Father” known to people that a denial of Son (Jesus, peace be upon him) would be a denial of the Father. Barnes, unlike Rogers, did not argue that because Jesus (peace be upon him) is “co – equal” or “one with Father” or “divine” that his denial would be equivalent to the father’s denial.  

Robertson’s Word Pictures states that because Jesus (peace be upon him) according to the will of father was making the father known that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) denial would, in effect, would be a denial of the Father:

He that confesseth the Son (ho homologōn ton huion). Because the Son reveals the Father” (Italics emphasize ours)

Christianity’s famous commentator Matthew Henry comments that whosoever controverts the witness of son denies the testimony and “seal” of the father upon Jesus (peace be upon him):

He that opposes Christ denies the witness and testimony of the Father, and the seal that HE hath given to his Son; for him hath God the Father sealed, Joh_6:27. And he that denies the witness and testimony of the Father, concerning Jesus Christ denies that God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ,…”(Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that according to Matthew Henry the “seal” of the father was not that Jesus (peace be upon him), his obedient servant, was co – equal with him rather he through the designation of God’s “seal” was a prophet and a priest, as commentator Clarke construes:

Him hath God the Father sealed – By this expression, our Lord points out the commission which, as the Messiah, he received from the Father, TO BE PROPHET and PRIEST to an ignorant, sinful world.” (Clarke’s Commentary, Joh 6:27,Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe again (in the bold sentences) that Matthew Henry explicitly states that the denial of the witness and the testimony of the father concerning Jesus (peace be upon him) is a denial of the fact that “God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ”, and noticeably, nothing as such that Jesus is divine and consequently Jesus’ denial (peace be upon him) is God’s denial.

Therefore, it is absolutely absurd, if not emotional, to interpret that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty, co – equal with the father, only because his (peace be upon him) denial is a denial of the father.

[Side note: The “seal” of the God upon Jesus (peace be upon him) further militates Rogers untenable claim for the deity of Christ (peace be upon him). For according to leading commentators “seal” as designated to Jesus (peace be upon him) meant either as “ambassador”, “intercessor” etc.

He has sealed him, that is, has given him full authority to deal between God and man, AS GOD’S AMBASSADOR to man and MAN’S INTERCESSOR WITH GOD, and has proved his commission by miracles.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Joh 6: 22-27, Capital, Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

Mark that all substitute titles for “seal” prove nothing else but Islamic fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) was no more than a prophet of Allah (SWT) disproving Rogers claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was God – Almighty.

 Furthermore, it is contradictory assumption about Jesus (peace be upon him) to be man’s intercessor WITH God and to be God – Almighty at the same instant.

To compound Rogers case we would like to enquire, firstly, to which higher authority would Jesus (peace be upon him) beseech for men and secondly, why would he at all plead at all to his higher authority is not he co – equal with father? ]

If the so labeled first response was weak then his second reasoning to defend deity of Christ (peace be upon him) was even more fragile:

“Second, as I pointed out before, Mr. Anonymous does not believe in “the Son”; indeed, he rejects such a notion as a blasphemous misconception that needs to be “cleaned”. Accordingly, Mr. Anonymous cannot claim to believe in “the messiahship of the Son”, and, therefore, “is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him.”” (Italics emphasize ours)

Once again the above adduced argument does not prove deity of Messiah (peace be upon him) by any stretch of exegesis. Nevertheless, the misleading argument has been dealt in under the sub – sections “Comprehension Complications”, “Son of God” and elsewhere of The True Shahada Indeed: [Part 2].

No wonder his third argument had to be the worst:

“Third, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Anonymous doesn’t have a clue what the true import of the word “Messiah” is, and so, when he acts as if he affirms “the messiahship of the Son”, his words ring hollow. (Note: the point here is not that Anonymous does not know what the mere word means, i.e. anointed one, but that He doesn’t have any clue what the concept of the Messiah is, or why Jesus is uniquely singled out, even in his own Qur’an, as the Messiah, for his completely detailed Qur’an never tells him.)” (Italics emphasize ours)

We would like to enquire Rogers that to which import of the word “Messiah”, he presumes, would invest divinity to Jesus, peace be upon him?

In the process, he complained that we “blithely overlooked” some important issues. In other words had we considered what we “blithely overlooked” it would have proved us the deity of an all most naked man on the cross. That being the case let us consider all his complaints.

 We would first consider the “overlooked” argument numbered “1)” and “3)”respectively:

            “1) who it was that the Father appointed;…

1) The fact is, according to the book of First John, it was Jesus, variously designated as “the life”, “the eternal life”, and “the Word of Life” (1 John 1:1-2), as well as “His Son” (1 John 1:3, 7; 3:23; 4:10; 5:9, 10, 11, 20), “His only Son” (1 John 4:9), “the Son” (1 John 1:24; 4:14; 5:12), and “the Son of God” (1 John 2:8; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 20), who was appointed to be the Messiah.”

“3) the purpose for which He was sent.

3) Finally, the reason that Jesus was sent as the Messiah, and the task that He, as the Messiah, was given to perform, was: “To be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14), to be “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2), “to take away sin” (1 John 3:5), to be “our Advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1), “to destroy the Devil’s works” (1 John 3:8), and to give us “eternal life” (1 John 2:25; 5:11-12).” (Italics emphasize ours)

Again, since I am such a nice and considerate boy we would comply with Rogers to accept that “Father” appointed Jesus (peace be upon him) as “the life”, “the eternal life”, and “the Word of Life”, “His Son”, “His only Son”, “the Son”, and “the Son of God”, who was appointed to be the Messiah” “To be the Savior of the world”, “to be “the propitiation for our sins”,” “to take away sin”, “to be “our Advocate with the Father”, “to destroy the Devil’s works”  yet it cannot be proven that Jesus was God – Almighty!

For another noticeable point, Rogers wrote that “Father APPOINTED” Jesus (peace be upon him) for the list of jobs. It is incongruous that one of the two “persons” of allegedly same status “appoints” and confer duties to the other; especially when the converse is not to be found throughout the sixty six books. Statements of such notions elicit the subservience of Jesus (peace be upon him) to his higher authority. (Praise be to Allah.)

Let us now examine his point number “2)”:

“2) Furthermore, the sense in which John speaks of Jesus being “manifested” (1 John 1:2), or “sent” (1 John 4:10, 14), or “appearing” (1 John 2:5, 8), or having “come” (1 John 4:2; 5:20), is from heaven where he existed “with the Father” (1 John 1:2) “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1, 13, 14), which reflects the first several verses of the opening prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-3), and also the divine title – “the Beginning and the End” –  indiscriminately applied by the apostle John to the Father (Revelation 21:6) and the Son (Revelation 22:13) in the book of Revelation.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

1 John 1:1 states that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “manifested” as the “Life”. The usage of the word “Life” has to be metaphorical more than literal. Metaphorical usage of the word “Life” most closely alludes to “salvation”, thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent as salvation for the deviants. However, so was the case with numerous other prophets of Allah (SWT). All came to save their nation or, in other words, to provide salvation to the people they were sent for. Therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) being “manifested” as “Life” does not prove that he was God – Almighty lest other prophets might object (peace be upon them all)!

The Sense In which biblical Jesus (Peace be upon him) was Manifested

 Additionally, Jesus (peace be upon him) was “sent” as “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Nevertheless, a referral to Old Testament traditions bring forth that even Goats were used as atonement for the propitiation of Israelite sins:

The Scapegoat: He (Aaron) shall put both his hands on the goat’s head and confess over it all the evils, SINS, and rebellions of the people of Israel, AND SO TRANSFER THEM TO THE GOAT’S HEAD. Then the goat is to be driven off into the desert by a man appointed to do it. THE GOAT WILL CARRY ALL THEIR SINS AWAY WITH HIM INTO SOME UNINHABITED LAND. (Holy Bible, Leviticus 16:21-22, TEV, Bold, Capital, Underline and Italics emphasize ours

Evangelical author P.D. Bramsen bolsters:

“The underlying principle of the law of the sacrifice can be summed up in a word: substitution. An innocent animal would die as the condemned sinner’s substitute

And

“The person placing his or her hand on the head of a sacrifice symbolized the transfer of sin to the flawless creature. The sin-bearer then perished in the place of the sinner.” (One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 203)

Bramsen then cites the scapegoat (rather “scape-lamb”) of New Testament:

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’”, (John 1:29, One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 232)

P.D. Bramsen finally concurs that The Lamb of God, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him) was (allegedly) nailed on the cross to incur the sins exactly as the scapegoats of the Old Testament days did:

“During those hours on the cross, as the planet was enveloped with darkness, the LORD LAID ON HIS WILLING, SINLESS SON THE CONTAMINATION AND CONDEMNATION OF OUR SINS. What actually transpired between the Father and Son we may never comprehend, but one thing is sure: IT WAS THE GREATEST TRANSACTION OF ALL TIME.” (One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 248. Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Based on the above argument we conclude that the similitude of Jesus (peace be upon him), with respect of him being “sent” as the “propitiation for our sins”, “to take away sin”, was that of the sacrificial animals like goats, bulls, oxen etc, biblically. And, subsequently there is nothing divine to be proved from this argument. On the contrary it again back fires severely against Christianity’s stand with respect to divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) similitude was not that of a true God, however, of an animal -, lamb, goat etc, biblically!

The Beginning And The End

Rogers own Christian brethren have provided a fitting response to Rogers’ claim:

and also the divine title – “the Beginning and the End” –  indiscriminately applied by the apostle John to the Father (Revelation 21:6) and the Son (Revelation 22:13) in the book of Revelation.”

The Unitarians explain:

“It is clear why Christ would be called the “Beginning and the End” in association with these concepts. He is the firstborn from the dead, and he will be the one to call the last people out of their graves, he is both the Author and Finisher of faith, he is the Man by whom God will judge the world and he is the one who will then create and bring to completion the next ages (see the notes on Heb. 1:10). There is no compelling reason to assume Jesus is God simply because of the title, “the Beginning and the End.” (rev 21:6)” (Source, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Therefore, one possible reason, according to Unitarians, why Jesus (peace be upon him) was biblically entitled as “Beginning and the End” because he is the first born of dead and would be the caller to the last person from his/her grave! It does not prove he is God – Almighty. We would, Allah – willing, take such topics in greater detail in our future articles enquiring divinity of Christ (peace be upon him).

Finally Rogers summed up his weak argument in support of Christ’s divinity (peace be upon him) in most self destructive manner:

            “1 John 4:9-10 may be cited as representative of the teaching of 1 John:

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10).

It is more than evident that according to John’s first epistle, the reason a denial of Jesus the Messiah is a denial of the Father is because Jesus is the Father’s Son and Word, who was set apart and sent from heaven to be the Messiah, the Savior of the world. In fact, this is precisely what we read in the context of John 17:1-5, which should be cited again so Mr. Anonymous has no excuse for not seeing the connection the next time around. According to John 17:1-5: 1) Jesus is the Son (and God is His Father); 2) Jesus was sent from heaven (where he existed before time); and 3) Jesus was sent to be the Christ (the Son of God come in the flesh to accomplish the work of redemption and give eternal life to God’s people)” (Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

We must admit that Rogers is more Christian than logical here since:

  1. Jesus (peace be upon him) being “Father’s Son and Word” does not prove he is God – Almighty. So is the case with him being “Messiah”, and “the Savior of the world”. In fact we believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was a righteous man and a mighty prophet, we believe he was Messiah and like all other prophets was/would be the savior if we only heed to his teachings.
  1. 2.      “Jesus was sent from heaven (where he existed before time)”: If abode in heaven or having being sent from heaven is a license to worship then Rogers should immediately start to worship Angels since they also reside in heaven from where they are “sent” for various jobs:

 

  1. a.      But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, NOT THE ANGELS WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32, Capital and Underline emphasize ours)

 

  1. b.      Nevertheless, if Rogers tried to argue that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) pre – existence is any proof for his divinity then he should consult brother Sami Zaatari’s following documentation; we are not going to invent any wheel in this article:

What about Conjoining of Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (SAW)?

 

To our appeal of Qur’an 4:80 and 49:14 to prove, through analogy, that since one cannot conjoin servant Mohammad (peace be upon him) to Allah – Almighty, similarly, it is illogical and nonsense to conjoin another servant Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) to God – Almighty; Rogers, firstly, repeated:

  1. 1.      A number of Muslims seem to recognize this pattern of thought when they refuse to confess the second half of their own creed, i.e., the words pertaining to Muhammad. This was alluded to earlier as one of the perennial disputes between the main body of Muslims and a smaller but growing and vocal group of Muslims known as Submitters who follow the teachings of Rashad Khalifa.3 These Muslims recognize that to associate Muhammad too closely with Allah, as most Muslims seem to do in practice when they repeatedly recite and intensely chant their Shahada, is to run perilously close to making a deity out of Muhammad. They may not call Muhammad God by name, but here the old adage applies: actions speak louder than words. Indeed, outright fetishism for Muhammad is not unknown in the Islamic world and the seeds for it are found right here, not to mention many other places in Islamic teaching. (Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

Here we have a typically presumptuous response. Rogers unabashedly assumed that for some unknown reasons, which he desisted to provide, “the main body of Muslims…associate Muhammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah”. This is a pure assumption, as discernable; unsupported through any proof!

The only reasons that Rogers could think of was (a) repeated recitation and intense chanting of the Shahada and (b) the usage of the Arabic word WA, the conjunction of partnership – “Allah AND his Apostle””

Both the arguments only backfire against this ignorant apologist because (a) when Muslims “repeatedly” and “intensely” enchant their “Shahada” they never “associate Muhammad too closely with Allah” (peace be upon him). If some deviant sect, namely, Submitters (to imposter Rashad Khalifa) think subversively then it is their problem not of the “main body of Muslims”. On the contrary, Mohammad (peace be upon him) always taught about his subservience (to Allah (SWT)) and his messenger hood (from Allah (SWT)):

“Narrated Sa’d ibn AbuWaqqas

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: If anyone says on hearing the Mu’adhdhin: I testify that there is no god but Allah alone, Who has not partner, AND THAT MUHAMMAD IS HIS SERVANT AND HIS MESSENGER, (and that) I am satisfied with Allah as my Lord, WITH MUHAMMAD AS MESSENGER, and with Islam as din (code of life), his sins would be forgiven. In the narration transmitted by Ibn Rumh the words are: He who said on hearing the Mu’adhdhin ‘and verify I testify.'” Qutaybah has not mentioned his words: ” And I.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith Number 179, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Ignorant Rogers should take heed and notice that in the above adduced Hadith literature, the testimonial (or Shahada) clearly and explicitly states the status of Mohammad (peace be upon him) as SERVANT and MESSENGER only. We check Rogers to establish his claim that Muslims conjoin Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT) thereby deifying him.

We do not know of any so called “main body of Muslims” who has associated Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah thereby jeopardizing “Tawheed” even after having a knowledge of above Hadith along with myriad others (at Rogers’ service):

            “Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to teach us tashahhud as he taught us a Surah of the Qur’an, as following: `In the name of Allah and with the grace of Allah, the adorations with the tongue, acts of worship and good things are due to Allah. Peace be upon Thee, O Apostle, and Mercy of Allah and His blessings; let there be peace upon us and upon the PIOUS SERVANTS of Allah. I testify that there is no god but Allah and I also testify that MUHAMMAD IS HIS SERVANT AND HIS MESSENGER; I beg of Allah Paradise and seek refuge with Allah from the Hell-fire.’

Transmitted by Nasa’i.” (Al – Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 285, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version, Underline, Italics, Bold and Capital emphasize ours )

Notice that prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) taught his status to be that of a SERVANT AND A MESSENGER only along with all other pious servants, that is, earlier prophets including Jesus (peace be upon him).

There, thus, remains no reason, no rationale with absolutely no scriptural proof why anybody would closely associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) with Allah – Almighty unless he be a “Submitter” or any “Anthony Rogers”.

We would quote one last Hadith which would take in account of Rogers’ much celebrated argument of close association between Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) explicitly:

            “Narrated Anas ibn Malik

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone says in the morning: “O Allah! in the morning we call Thee, the bearers of Thy Throne, Thy angels, and all Thy creatures to witness that Thou art Allah than Whom there is no god, THOU BEING ALONE AND WITHOUT A PARTNER, AND THAT MUHAMMAD IS THY SERVANT AND THY APOSTLE,” Allah will forgive him any sins that he commits that day; and if he repeats them in the evening. Allah will forgive him any sins he commits that night.” (Sunan of Abu – Dawood, Hadith Number 2400, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe very assiduously that the text unequivocally speaks that, firstly, Allah (SWT) is ALONE and WITHOUT ANY ASSOCIATE, PARTNER etc. Secondly, the immediate continuation of the Hadith text with Mohammad’s status (peace be upon him) as a SERVANT AND APOSTLE only further endangers Rogers’ ill – founded and bleak argument that the main body of Muslims associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT).

If Mohammad (peace be upon him) would have been too closely associated with Allah (SWT) then the text, firstly, would not have explicitly mentioned that Allah(SWT) is without a partner of an associate and, secondly, the text would not have, immediately, stated Mohammad (peace be upon him) as servant and an apostle. Therefore, both the clauses of the Hadith, namely, Allah (SWT) without an associate and Mohammad (peace be upon him) only a servant and an apostle, one after the other, prepare solid proof against all hokum and gibberish claims that main body of Muslims associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT).

If this was not enough then Rogers stooped even lower with his reasoning and polemics:

a)      They may not call Muhammad God by name, but here the old adage applies: actions speak louder than words. Indeed, outright fetishism for Muhammad is not unknown in the Islamic world and the seeds for it are found right here, not to mention many other places in Islamic teaching.”

And

b)      “The notion of Muhammad encapsulated in the Shahada where his name is joined to God’s as the ultimate expression of faith, and which comes to fuller expression in the Qur’an and Sunnah where Muslims are required to yield Muhammad absolute submission and are to slavishly imitate his every action or inaction, with certain limited exceptions of course, such as those that belonged to the perks of prophethood, an observation that really only strengthens the point being made, is far less consistent with monotheism than anything any pagan ever dreamed up in his wildest imagination.” (Italics emphasize ours)

What Rogers labeled as “Outright Fetishism” is “Outright LOVE” which we have for the exalted person of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and his character. Loving somebody does not mean worshipping him and Rogers seems to forget that we even love Ibn Maryam (peace be upon him).

As for the trashy complaint that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name is joined to God’s name as ultimate expression of faith; then, it should be clearly distinguished that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name is joined with God’s name as a messenger, apostle, prophet and servant and not as a second person in the Godhead with Allah (SWT):

            “Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam

I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) saying (the version of Sulayman has: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) used to say) after his prayer:- “O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything, I bear witness that Thou art the Lord alone Who hast no partner; O Allah, Our Lord and Lord of everything, I BEAR WITNESS THAT MUHAMMAD IS THY SERVANT AND THY APOSTLE; O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything, I bear witness that all the servants are brethren; O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything make me sincere to Thee, and my family too at every moment, in this world and in the world hereafter, O Possessor of glory and honour, listen to me and answer. Allah is incomparably great. O Allah, Light of the heavens and of the earth”. (Sunan of Abu – Dawood, Hadith Number 594, Al – Alim CD-Rom version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe carefully that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name has been joined with the Lord’s name as His servant and His apostle. Therefore, it does not allude to the sin of “Shirk” even in the remotest sense. Below are some more references to further corroborate the fact:

Narrated AbuHurayrah

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: When the dead body (of a Muslim) is buried in the grave there appear before him two Angels, both having black faces and blue eyes. One is called Munkar and the other is called Nakir and they say:

Say what you have to say about this person and he will say: He is the servant of Allah and His messenger. I bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and they both will say: We already knew that you would say this. Then his grave will be expanded to the extent of 4900 square cubic feet and it will be illuminated, then it will be said to him: Go to sleep and he will say: I intend to go to my family in order to inform them and they would say: Go to sleep like the sleep of a newly wedded bride whom no one awakens but one who is dearest to her amongst his family members. Only Allah would resurrect him from his resting place. If he (the dead) were a hypocrite he will say: I heard people making a statement (pertaining to the oneness of Allah and the apostlehood of Muhammad) and I said the same but I do not know.

And they would say: We already knew that you would say this and the earth will be told to press him and it will press him till his ribs are clasped together and he will not be relieved of the torment till Allah resurrects him from his resting-place.

Transmitted by Tirmidhi.  (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 44, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

 

There cannot any clearer and more direct Hadith explaining the status of Mohammad (peace be upon him) than the above Tirmidhi Hadith. Notice that upon the query of two Angels regarding the prophet (peace be upon him) the reply of a true believer will be that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is the SERVANT OF ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER.

Observe that he would not reply that there is some kind of “close association” between SERVANT Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) rather he would only proclaim that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is His Messenger.

 

To further confound Rogers’ snafus we ironically have names of Allah’s angels, books, and other messengers beside Mohammad (peace be upon him) as expression of faith:

The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah His angels His books and His Apostles “We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Apostles.” And they say: “We hear and we obey; (We seek) Thy forgiveness Our Lord and to Thee is the end of all journeys.” (The Holy Qur’an, 2:285, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The above quotation from Glorious Qur’an should help Rogers gloat but only in his misunderstanding that Muslims worship or “closely associate” angels, books and other apostles to Allah (SWT).

Rather, as a sincere truth seeker, Rogers should stop carping that main body of Muslims too closely associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) with Allah and pay attention to the capacity in which Mohammad (peace be upon him, angels, books, other prophets etc) construct the expression of faith in Islam.

Expression of belief which also encapsulates belief in Allah (SWT) AND His angels AND His books AND His apostles AND rendezvous AND resurrection is further presented in the Sahih:

“One day while Allah’s Apostle was sitting with the people, a man came to him walking and said, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Belief?” The Prophet said, “Belief is to believe in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the meeting with Him, and to believe in the Resurrection.” The man asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Islam?” The Prophet replied, “Islam is to worship Allah and not worship anything besides Him, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the (compulsory) charity, i.e. Zakat, and to fast the month of Ramadan.” The man again asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Ihsan (i.e. perfection or benevolence)?” The Prophet said, “Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you do not achieve this state of devotion, then (take it for granted that) Allah sees you.” The man further asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. When will the Hour be established?” The Prophet replied, “The one who is asked about it does not know more than the questioner does, but I will describe to you its portents. When the lady slave gives birth to her mistress, that will be of its portents; when the bare-footed naked people become the chiefs of the people, that will be of its portents. The Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah. Verily, the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). He sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs.” (31.34) Then the man left. The Prophet said, “Call him back to me.” They went to call him back but could not see him. The Prophet said, “That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion.”” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Hadith Number 300, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

According to the above Hadith we find that the belief in (1.) Allah (SWT), (2.) His angels,(3.) His books,(4.) His apostles, (5.) meeting with Him, and the (6.) belief in our resurrection does not mean that Islam has five more gods besides Allah (SWT) due to their “close association” or their “encapsulation” in the article of belief. Such an interpretation can be either of Rogers or of his submitter buddies.

Once again we will have to understand the capacity in which angels, books, apostles etc are mention or “encapsulated” in belief with Allah. The effect in which angels, books etc are “encapsulated” in belief can be anything but their divinity.

Absolute Submission

As far as the question of absolute submission to Mohammad (peace be upon him) is concerned Rogers did not provide us any Islamic proof to support his claim. All he could think of is as follows:

“Furthermore, the very passages Mr. Anonymous cited above, tending as they do in the same direction, also lead to shirk, not only according to Christians and what might be considered an aberrant Muslim group like the Submitters, but according to the logic of orthodox Muslims themselves, for not only does the latter passage use the Arabic word WA, the conjunction of partnership – “Allah AND HIS Apostle” – but they both elevate Muhammad to a position of absolute authority, a position where absolute submission is due to Muhammad in addition to God, rather than the position of a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands.” (Bolded Capitalized emphasize ours)

Unfortunately for Rogers the latter verse he talks about and even quotes, provides an answer to his dilemma. The phrase “Allah AND his Apostle” is a response in itself. Notice that the verse commands to follow “Allah and HIS Apostle”. The pronoun “HIS” was more important to be highlighted than the conjunction “AND” since the pronoun “HIS” returns the case back to Allah.

Mohammad (peace be upon him) – as an apostle of Allah, did not decide or promulgate anything out of his own whims rather everything that he said related to Islam was directly or indirectly a revelation revealed to him:

“But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us say: “Bring us a Reading other than this or change this.” Say: “It is not for me of my own accord to change it: I FOLLOW NAUGHT BUT WHAT IS REVEALED UNTO ME: if I were to disobey my Lord I should myself fear the Penalty of a Great Day (to come). Say: “If Allah had so willed I should not have rehearsed it to you nor would He have made it known to you. A whole lifetime before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?”, (The Holy Qur’an, 10:15-16, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-ROM version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Therefore, Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) injunction was not his but Allah’s decrees.

Commenting on Qur’an 4:80, a similar verse Rogers would have loved (mis)using, Yusuf Ali explains Rogers’ rigmarole very cogently:

“The Messenger was sent to preach, guide, instruct, and show the way, -not to drive people to good. That is not Allah’s Plan, which trains the human Will. The Messenger’s duty is therefore to convey the Message of Allah, in all the ways of persuasion that are open to him. If men perversely disobey that Message, THEY ARE NOT DISOBEYING HIM BUT THEY ARE DISOBEYING ALLAH. They are not obliging the Messenger: they are merely doing their duty.” (Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

In the above adduced passage all the so thumped “close association” argument to deify Mohammad (peace be upon him) is immediately refuted by the fact that Mohammad (peace be upon him) fears the Chastisement of the Judgment Day if he were to disobey Allah (SWT). This clearly proves that Mohammad (peace be upon him) can never be interpreted to have any sort of “close association” of co – equality with Allah (SWT), as Rogers unsuccessfully wants to prove. And therefore, it is fallacious to interpret that absolute submission is due to Muhammad in addition to God”

Rogers’ interpretational perversion from “obedience” to “absolute submission” can be further explained by the fact that The Holy Qur’an enjoined obedience or the so called “absolute submission” to the followers of earlier prophets as well:

We sent not an Apostle but to be obeyed in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only when they were unjust to themselves come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them they would have found Allah indeed Oft-Returning most Merciful.” (The Holy Qur’an, 4:64, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Commenting on the above verse, Ibn Abbas (RAA) quotes an anecdote of Abdullah Ibn Ubayy who had similar disease as that of Rogers’ in his heart. Abdullah Ibn Ubayy carped that Messenger (peace be upon him) wants the multitude to heed to his commandments rather than obeying Allah’s (SWT) decrees:

“When the verse (We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah’s leave) was revealed, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ubayy said: ” Muhammad commands us to obey him instead of obeying Allah ” , so Allah revealed the following: (Whoso obeyeth the messenger) in that which he commands (obeys Allah) because THE MESSENGER NEVER COMMANDS ANYTHING UNLESS ALLAH HAS COMMANDED IT, (and whoso turneth away) from obeying the messenger: (We have not sent thee as a warder) a custodian (over them).” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Observe, firstly, the reply given to Abdullah Ibn Ubayy’s futile objection, the messenger (peace be upon him) was/is to be obeyed not because he possess any sort of divine authority besides/with Allah (SWT) but because the apostle (peace be upon him) does not command anything unless Allah (SWT) has commanded him to command his people. Therefore, he is just another agent of Allah (SWT) through which Allah (SWT) interacts with his creation, thus, a rejection of the prophet (peace be upon him) has to be, in effect, a rejection of The God Himself and, similarly, an obedience to the messenger(peace be upon him) is, in effect, a fealty to Allah (SWT).

Secondly the verse reads that NO MESSENGER was sent but to be OBEYED. Therefore, either, as per Rogers’ contention every previous messenger has to be in “close association” with Allah (SWT) or Rogers’ has once again proved the hollow grasp of The True Word of God.

As yet another instance to expose Rogers’ incompetence with Qur’anic knowledge is that he totally misunderstood the import of the word “obedience” and the injunction to obey Allah (SWT) and His messenger (peace be upon him). When Allah (SWT) Himself commanded believers to obey prophet (peace be upon him) he did not command them to worship him. Allah (SWT) did not state that believers should obey the messenger (peace be upon him) since he is in any sort “close association” (of co – equality) with Himself; those are Rogers’ sly interpretation. Rather the prophet was to be obeyed since he (peace be upon him) as an agent of Allah (SWT) would guide them to the truth, especially, in cases of disputes amongst people.

 In fact many such incidents of disputes, a case of which is quoted below, paved path for the revelation of such verses which would imply that obeying messenger (peace be upon him) is obeying Allah (SWT):

“Allah said,

[فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ]

(But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them,) Allah swears by His Glorious, Most Honorable Self, that no one shall attain faith until he refers to the Messenger for judgment in all matters. Thereafter, whatever the Messenger commands, is the plain truth that must be submitted to inwardly and outwardly. Allah said,

[ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُواْ فِى أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً]

(and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.) meaning: they adhere to your judgment, and thus do not feel any hesitation over your decision, and they submit to it inwardly and outwardly. They submit to the Prophet’s decision with total submission without any rejection, denial or dispute.

Al-Bukhari recorded that `Urwah said, “Az-Zubayr quarreled with a man about a stream which both of them used for irrigation. Allah’s Messenger said to Az-Zubayr,

«اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ ثُمَّ أَرْسِلِ الْمَاءَ إِلى جَارِك»

(O Zubayr! Irrigate (your garden) first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor.) The Ansari became angry and said, `O Allah’s Messenger! Is it because he is your cousin’ On that, the face of Allah’s Messenger changed color (because of anger) and said,

«اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ ثُمَّ احْبِسِ الْمَاءَ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَى الْجَدْرِ،ثُمَّ أَرْسِلِ الْمَاءَ إِلى جَارِك»

(Irrigate (your garden), O Zubayr, and then withhold the water until it reaches the walls (surrounding the palms). Then, release the water to your neighbor.) So, Allah’s Messenger gave Az-Zubayr his full right when the Ansari made him angry. Before that, Allah’s Messenger had given a generous judgment, beneficial for Az-Zubayr and the Ansari. Az-Zubayr said, `I think the following verse was revealed concerning that case,

[فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ]

(But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad ) judge in all disputes between them.)”’ Another Reason In his Tafsir, Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which the Messenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him.” (One Does not Become a Believer Unless He Refers to the Messenger for Judgment and Submits to his Decisions)

And,

“Allah chastises those who claim to believe in what Allah has sent down to His Messenger and to the earlier Prophets, yet they refer to other than the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes. It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Ayah was that a man from the Ansar and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, “Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.” However, the Muslim man said, “Let us refer to Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.” It was also reported that the Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jahiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Ayah. However, the Ayah has a general meaning, as it chastises all those who refrain from referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Taghut here.” (Referring to Other than the Qur’an and Sunnah for Judgment is Characteristic of Non-Muslims. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

We provide yet another perspective of response to Rogers’ argument of obeying Allah (SWT) and His messenger (peace be upon him). According to our interpretation the one possible wisdom behind the revelation of the verse “Obey Allah (SWT) AND His messenger (peace be upon him)” is that Obeying Allah (SWT) is following His final Book, that is, The Holy Qur’an and obeying messenger has at least two fold interpretations:

Firstly, obeying messenger (peace be upon him) is incumbent because it is the messenger (peace be upon him) who made Allah’s (SWT) commandments, that is The Holy Qur’an known to mankind. If people are to obey Allah (SWT), that is The Qur’an then they have to heed to the prophet (peace be upon him) since Allah (SWT) does not inspire holy verses directly to common people but through his worldly agent(s), peace be upon them.

Secondly, it seems unnecessary and superfluous that Allah – Almighty intervenes with a verse every time an Ansar and a Qureishite or a Muslim and Jew etc quibbled over mundane matters so much so that it find its place in the final word of Allah (SWT) – The Holy Qur’an. Mohammad (peace be upon him) as a prophet of Allah was fit enough to handle that with Allah’s (SWT) leave.

Or, in other words, there are two sets of revelations revealed in Islam. One that which found its way in The Holy Qur’an – Allah’s (SWT) final word and second is Hadith which is a second hand revelation (so to say).

Furthermore, The Holy Qur’an gives Rogers an opportunity to pettifog and increase the number of claimants of “close association” with Allah (SWT) since in a verse, which Rogers would relish to misunderstand; Allah (SWT) also includes authoritative people in “close association” with Him!:

“O ye who believe! obey Allah AND OBEY the Apostle AND  those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves refer it to Allah and His Apostle if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best and most suitable for final determination.” (The Holy Qur’an, 4:59, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Commenting on it Imam Ibn Kathir states:

“Allah states that whoever obeys His servant and Messenger, Muhammad , obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys him, disobeys Allah. Verily, whatever the Messenger utters is not of his own desire, but a revelation inspired to him. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ عَصَانِي»

(Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys the Amir (Leader, Ruler), obeys me; and whoever disobeys the Amir, disobeys me.) This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs. Allah’s statement,

[وَمَن تَوَلَّى فَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظاً]

(But he who turns away, then We have not sent you as a watcher over them.) means, do not worry about him. Your job is only to convey, and whoever obeys you, he will acquire happiness and success and you will gain a similar reward to that he earns. As for the one who turns away from you, he will gain failure and loss and you will not carry a burden because of what he does. A Hadith states,

«مَنْ يُطِعِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ رَشَدَ، وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَضُرُّ إِلَّا نَفْسَه»

(Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, will acquire guidance; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, will only harm himself.” (Obeying the Messenger is Obeying Allah. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The logic of the above obedience to “Amir” (leader) is as follows:-

  1. Obeying Amir (Leader) is obeying prophet (peace be upon him).
  2. Obeying Prophet is Obeying Allah (SWT)

Logically,

  1. Obeying Amir is obeying Allah (SWT)

And, thus we have a scenario where if we abide by Rogers’ weak objection then the “Amirs” must also have some sort of “close association” with Allah (SWT) which of course is be totally absurd, nevertheless, we expect Rogers to use this argument as a ground for his further attacks on deification of Mohammad (peace be upon him). Let him do it which would enable us to further destroy his tenuous objections.

Ironically, it is not that people with authority who have been included in any sort of “close association” with Allah (SWT) through the usage of the Arabic word “WA” used in the text nevertheless it exposes the Arabic incompetence of Rogers – an English speaking Nevadan. It also unmasks the dabbling nature of this apologist especially in an academic circle such as this. As an explanation we only mention here that the capacity in which the “Amirs” are to be followed is to be looked for.

Finally, to expose lies, distortion or outright ignorance we challenge Anthony Rogers to prove us that “absolute submission is due to Muhammad IN ADDITION TO GOD” because it is clear from Islamic scripture teeming with information that Mohammad (peace be upon him) – The prophet of Allah (SWT) – was indeed “a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands”:

MUHAMMAD IS NO MORE THAN AN APOSTLE: MANY WERE THE APOSTLES THAT PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM. If he died or were slain will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve him) with gratitude.” (The Holy Qur’an, 3:144, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Not only does the verse explicitly mentions that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was only a messenger of Allah (SWT), it also mentions that his (peace be upon him) status was similar to that of “apostles that passed away before him”. Until Rogers ignorantly fabricate some so called “close association” between Allah (SWT) and earlier prophets; the above adduced verse completely destroys all smutty allegations that there was any “close association” between Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him).

To further jeopardize Rogers’ case of “close association” we quote yet another verse from God’s word:

“Say ye: “We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND ANOTHER OF THEM AND WE BOW TO ALLAH (IN ISLAM).” (The Holy Qur’an, 2:136, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice The Holy Qur’an yet again responds to Rogers’ allegation by stating that there is no difference between one prophet and the other. Therefore, implicitly, there has to be absolutely no difference in status between Mohammad (peace be upon him) and all other earlier prophets. Thus, it is absolutely nescient to claim any sort of “close association” between Allah (SWT) and prophet (peace be upon him) unless Rogers can produce any proof that all earlier prophets (peace be upon them) had the same “close association” with Allah (SWT).

Another important point worthy of notice is the phrase “AND WE BOW TO ALLAH (IN ISLAM)”. Although, it has been stated that Muslims, as believers, believe in all earlier prophets without any discrimination yet they bow to Allah (SWT) only, therefore, educating the pseudo – intellectual that believing in prophets (peace be upon them) is conceptually totally different from worshipping Allah (SWT).

Another beautiful verse which succinctly responds to Rogers’ allegation and establish that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was “a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands” is:

“And to rehearse the Qur’an: and if any accept guidance they do it for the good of their own souls and if any stray say: “I AM ONLY A WARNER.” (The Holy Qur’an, 27:92,Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

And,

“We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin) but most men understand not.” (The Holy Qur’an, 34:28, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The above quoted verse clearly states that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was sent only communicate God’s “glad tidings” and “warnings”. Kindly observe the usage of the phrase “not sent thee but” which shows that status Mohammad (peace be upon him) in Islam, however, The Holy Qur’an also states that most men like Rogers do not understand Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) status and falsely impute allegations on his lofty self (peace be upon him).

Miscellaneous

Rogers continued with his ignorant and hollow polemics to bellow some ad hoc attacks on Islam. In this section we briefly take them into account since they do not even deserve a second look let alone, a response.

Slavishly Attack

Rogers wrote:

“The notion of Muhammad encapsulated in the Shahada where his name is joined to God’s as the ultimate expression of faith, and which comes to fuller expression in the Qur’an and Sunnah where Muslims are required to yield Muhammad absolute submission and are to slavishly imitate his every action or inaction,…” (Bold emphasize ours)

Since we have already responded to the claim of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name joined to God’s and absolute submission to him (peace be upon him), we would, therefore, only consider Rogers allegation that Muslims are required to “slavishly imitate” Mohammad (peace be upon him)

For brevity of this paper and as a rhetoric response we would enquire Rogers how does “slavishly imitating” Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) action or inaction prove that he is a second deity in Islam alongside Allah (SWT)? WE CHALLENGE ROGERS TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO PROVE THE ABOVE CLAIM HE MADE.

Presumptuous apologists like Rogers forget to analyze their own cultic creed before attacking the integrity and monotheism of Islam. He wrote:

“Even if the above observation is a hurdle Muslims can leap without any pangs of conscience, something that tells us more about their ability and willingness to rationalize problematic notions than it tells us about the internal coherence of their view of Tawhid, it is not at all something that Christians could find palatable, for our submission is to God only.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The tri – theistic apologist, while boasting of his non – existent monotheism, informed us partially that his “submission is to God only”, however, what he did not embarrassingly state was that his “submission” is to which God; Is it god – The “Abba” OR god – The son OR god – The dove or spook? We expect for a more comprehensive answer in his next “article”.

Straw man of John 5:23

In the original “article”, John 5:23 was used to support the non – existent Christian claim of deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) in John 17:3. We have already provided two through refutation to the argument of John 5:23 in our original response, nevertheless, in the counter rebuttal Rogers brought up several red herrings but a response to our refutation(s). Therefore, we would analyze his mottled counter response herein.

According to the argument of “Shirk” as brought up by the tri – theist:

“That the apostolic writings repeatedly join the Father and the Son,… likewise, we are told that all who want to honor the Father will also honor the Son “… even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:23, Bold emphasize ours).”

It is not very complex to understand the Trinitarian response. In effect, the argument is that because a dishonor to the son is a dishonor to the father therefore, there is, for tri – theists, an “essential unity of the Father and the Son.”

In our original response we argued and reasoned that because Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent, commissioned or dispatched by someone else (namely, father) therefore a disgrace to Jesus (peace be upon him) would be a dishonor to the dispatcher. To grasp the concept better we provided an example of George Bush and Condolezza Rice. If Rice was dispatched to our country by Bush and if she has been disgraced here then it would certainly be dishonor to Bush him lest Rogers “conjoin” Bush and Rice:

“A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!” (True Shahada Indeed)

Haplessly, to the above refutation Rogers could only respond with this feeble response:

“The bare fact that someone is sent doesn’t tell us whether he or she is the former, the latter, or something else altogether. Unfortunately for Anonymous, Jesus doesn’t just tell us that He was sent by God, He tells us that He was sent by His Father (John 5:17-18),…” (Italics emphasize ours)

There are two statements in Rogers’ response. Notice that in the first one, he claims that “someone is sent does not tell” him that who is former, latter etc. The point to be noted here is that we are not here to distinguish former or latter, the previous or the next etc, however, what we are interested in is who the dispatcher and who is the dispatched is and it is not very difficult to perceive from the text, that is, John 5:23 that the dispatcher is God and the dispatched is Jesus (peace be upon him). Therefore, the above “response” was nothing more than a messy trick to elude our main argument.

To make matters worse he made a second attempt from a different perspective to “respond” to our main argument (on John 5:23). Observe, how pathetically and absurdly, if not ludicrously, Rogers argued that Jesus (peace be upon him) does not say that “He was send by God” rather he (Jesus, peace be upon him) informs that “He was sent by His Father”. Rogers would have presumed his straw man argument to be an intellectual one until we enquire:

  • Has Rogers started any new Christian cult which makes a difference between the biblical father and God since the Bible is filled with references which proves that God has been referred to as father in his book.
  • Furthermore, how does the reasoning that he (Jesus, peace be upon him) did not mention that he (peace be upon him) was sent by God but by his (peace be upon him) father “conjoin” Jesus (peace be upon him) with father?

To his chagrin, Rogers went on pulling red herrings in an attempt to respond to our argument of John 5:23. He wrote:

“Unfortunately for Anonymous, Jesus doesn’t just tell us that He was sent by God, He tells us that He was sent by His Father (John 5:17-18), that He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22), and that all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.), all of which shows the essential unity of the Father and the Son.” (Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

To recapitulate, Rogers was going to prove the “essential unity of the Father and the Son” through John 5:23 which stated that a dishonor to Jesus (peace be upon him) would be a dishonor to the father.

However, Rogers have seemed to have lost the track somewhere in his dismay of falling short of substantial arguments thus he had to recourse to new arguments of Jesus (peace be upon him) potentate of doing that entire father can do and all judgment given into his (peace be upon him) hands. We would again check Rogers’ subterfuge to point out that he should ‘try’ to prove that dishonoring Jesus (peace be upon him) is dishonoring father to the effect that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father can be “conjoined”.

By bringing new arguments of all judgments in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) hands etc Rogers further compounds his problems because in order to support his original argument of conjoining Jesus (peace be upon him) and God of John 17:3 he was obliged to bring in the help of John 5:23, however, when John 5:23 was scrutinized Rogers was forced to ambulance in John 5:19-22 and “5:23ff.”; all this prove the flimsy nature of the so called biblical arguments to prove the deity of servant Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) where no verse stands a scrutiny on its own, even worst, every supportive verse brought in fails more miserably, thereby demolishing every argument until we reach John 17:3.

As we mentioned above that no verse stands up the challenge of establishing the much cherished sin of associating partners to Allah (SWT) in Christianity; moreover, because we are considerate for people dying hard in “Shirk” we would allow Rogers to use his new arguments of John 5:19-22  “and all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.)”

It is incumbent for us to quote the text of John 5:19-22 to expose the distortions and/or lies which was tried to be knit above. 

John 5:19-22

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

For the Father loveth the Son, AND SHEWETH HIM all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:” (Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Based on the above text Rogers tried to establish that “He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22)”, nevertheless, Rogers forgot that we might question him how can he conclude so?

Because, firstly, the text does not explicitly state that Jesus (peace be upon him) “can do whatever His Father does.”

Secondly, neither does the text implicitly mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever His Father does rather, on the contrary it states that “THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF”. The impotency, as expressed by the lord and master of Rogers, of doing works by himself negates all attempts to prove that he can do whatever father does; however, yet again it proves the dependency of Jesus (peace be upon him) on father.

The restrictions upon Jesus (peace be upon him) in doing works, is further corroborated by the fact that father has to “show him” (peace be upon him) works so that he (peace be upon him) can do them, “and sheweth him”. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do only that much work which he was allowed or showed, not more than that:

 “but what he seeth the Father do”.

When the above facts that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do only that bit which he sees under the permission of father and that he cannot do anything more than that are juxtaposed then it would be abysmally ignorant to claim that  Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever his father does!

Even Christian scholars of eminence comport with us to state that doing works that has been shown to Jesus (peace be upon him) is actually, obeying father like any other servant. Authoritative biblical commentator Matthew Henry explains:

“That the Son conforms to the Father (Joh_5:19): The Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do; for these things does the Son. The Lord Jesus, AS MEDIATOR, is First, OBEDIENT TO HIS FATHER’S WILL; SO ENTIRELY OBEDIENT THAT HE CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, in the same sense as it is said, God cannot lie, cannot deny himself, which expresses the perfection of his truth, not any imperfection in his strength; so here, Christ was so entirely devoted to his Father’s will that it was impossible for him in any thing to act separately. Secondly, He is observant of his Father’s counsel; he can, he will, do nothing but what he sees the Father do. No man can find out the work of God, but the only-begotten Son, who lay in his bosom, sees what he does, is intimately acquainted with his purposes, and has the plan of them ever before him. WHAT HE DID AS MEDIATOR, THROUGHOUT HIS WHOLE UNDERTAKING, WAS THE EXACT TRANSCRIPT OR COUNTERPART OF WHAT OF THE FATHER DID; that is, what he designed, when he formed the plan of our redemption in his eternal counsels, and settled those measures in every thing which never could be broken, nor ever needed to be altered. IT WAS THE COPY OF THAT GREAT ORIGINAL; IT WAS CHRIST’S FAITHFULLNESS, AS IT WAS MOSES’S, THAT HE DID ALL ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN SHOWN HIM IN THE MOUNT.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, John 5:19, Capital, Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

Notice that according to Henry, Jesus (peace be upon him) was obedient so much so that he cannot do anything of himself and whatever he did was done as mediator and not as God – Almighty.

At this point Rogers might be excited to counter argue that, however, Jesus (peace be upon him) can do all things that father does, as the text states. The fallacy that would be committed in such an argument would be that Jesus (peace be upon him) still had to be “shown” those works by the father, in other words Jesus (peace be upon him) is not independent enough to bear the tag of God – Almighty. Conversely, we find no proofs in the entire Bible where such a dependency is liable on father with respect to Jesus (peace be upon him). 

Another very important observable statement made by the commentator is that the similitude of Jesus (peace be upon him) in doing all the works that father shows him to do is that he obeyed and did all things according to the will of the father. In other words Rogers’ erroneous interpretation that “He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22)” is disabused here by a Christian scholar that Jesus (peace be upon him) merely copies or obeys the actual “pattern shown” to him.

 Following father in doing works “likewise” should not be misinterpreted to be capable of doing whatever father does; such an interpretation would jeopardize the concept of God in Christianity because commentator Henry further goes on to explain that doing works “likewise” (after being shown) is similar to Moses (peace be upon him) doing works as he was shown, on the mount Sinai. If Rogers disagree then he should come up and declare that even biblical Moses (peace be upon him) “can do whatever His Father does”! and thus, even he is God-Almighty for Christians.

Noted Bible commentator Henry further corroborates our point that father showing Jesus (peace be upon him) works tantamount to father directing Jesus (peace be upon him) towards works which in conjunction with above comment concerning Moses that even Moses was directed on the mount clearly disproves every Christian claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever father can do:

“He shows him all things ha autos poieiwhich he does, that is, which the Son does, so it might be construed; ALL THAT THE SON DOES IS BY DIRECTION FROM THE FATHER; he shows him. 2. IN WHAT HE WILL COMMUNICATE; HE WILL SHOW HIM, THAT IS, WILL APPOINT AND DIRECT HIM TO DO GREATER WORKS THAN THESE. (1.) Works of greater power than the curing of the impotent man; for he should raise the dead, and should himself rise from the dead.” (Capital, Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

From the above citation we have at least two fold refutations to Rogers’ claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever father can.

If, (1) Jesus (peace be upon him) does any work, “likewise” his father, after being shown, then it means, that Jesus (peace be upon him) is only obeying the “directions” which were “communicated” to him – similar (2)”communications” which were “shown” to Moses (peace be upon him) on the mount, however, that did not establish Moses (peace be upon him) on the seat of omnipotence!

(Side remark:- Many emotional Christian apologists and Church ministers claim that because Jesus (peace be upon him) gave life to the dead thus he got to be God – Almighty (God forbid), however, little that they consider Henry’s comments who clearly explains that it would be God – Almighty who would “direct”/“communicate” Jesus (peace be upon him) into executing greater works, that of animating dead bodies. By “directing”/ “communicating” God – Almighty will empower Jesus (peace be upon him) into undertaking such feats of miracles. This is supported by Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency of doing works; John 5:30 , “I CAN OF MY OWN SELF DO NOTHING:…” and rightly disabused in Qur’an by the addition of the phrase/clause miracles were made possible by “My (God’s) leave”:

“…And behold! thou makest out of clay as it were the figure of a bird by My leave and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave and thou healest those born blind and the lepers by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs and the unbelievers among them said: `This is nothing but evident magic’.” (The Holy Qur’an, 5:110, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version)

So far we have realized that the arguments that Jesus (peace be upon him) being sent by “His Father”, “equality of potency with His Father” and “Judgment” prowess does not work to establish any kind of “close association” with father.

However, Rogers did not exhaust off arguments. He brought up biblical verse which, for him, would suggest that dishonoring the son would be dishonoring the father, hence Jesus (peace be upon him) is god – at par with father:

“He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:23).” This kind of close association between the Father and the Son is tantamount to the sin of shirk in Islamic theology (were it not true), and if it is not, then nothing is.” (Source)

To the above gibberish argument we replied that because Jesus (peace be upon him) was an agent or ambassador of father therefore a disgrace to Jesus (peace be upon him) would, in effect, reflect as a dishonor of father himself:

“A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!” (Source)

Observe that we provided a practical example of George Bush and Rice to explain the argument better. No wonder Rogers did not comprehend it and replied back in haste:

“It is more than an understatement, then, to say that Jesus is worthy of honor merely because He was sent by God, ignoring as it does that it wasn’t just some guy found in a cave that the Father chose and sent, for no mere creature could claim to be God’s Son by nature; no mere creature could do whatever the Father does; and no mere creature could possibly say that He is worthy of equal honor with the Father.”

In the first place, we have already seen how helplessly special Jesus (peace be upon him) was when he came to judging which, in itself, questioned the “nature of God’s Son” and we would take into account Rogers’ scapegoat of “equal honor” later in this response, however, for the time being we would only concentrate on Rogers’ comment that, according to him, It is more than an understatement, then, to say that Jesus is worthy of honor merely because He was sent by God”.

Rogers’ fuss is irrelevant since biblical scholars of authority comport with us that dishonoring the son is dishonoring the father since son was an ambassador of father. Not just this, they also add that because the mission, objective etc of ambassador Jesus (peace be upon him) was the same as that of his dispatcher father, therefore, a dishonor of Jesus (peace be upon him) would be, in effect, a dishonor of the father:

“…He that honours not the Son honours not the Father who has sent him. Some pretend a reverence for the Creator, and speak honourably of him, who make light of the Redeemer, and speak contemptibly of him; but let such know that the honours and interests of the Father and Son are so inseparably twisted and interwoven that the Father never reckons himself honoured by any that dishonour the Son. Note, (1.) Indignities done to the Lord Jesus reflect upon God himself, and will so be construed and reckoned for in the court of heaven. The Son having so far espoused the Father’s honour as to take to himself the reproaches cast on him (Rom_15:3), the Father does no less espouse the Son’s honour, and counts himself struck at through him. (2.) The reason of this is because the Son is sent and commissioned by the Father; it is the Father who hath sent him. Affronts to an ambassador are justly resented by the prince that sends him. And by this rule those who truly honour the Son honour the Father also;” (Henry’s Commentary, John 5:17-30, Capital, Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe what notable commentator Henry says in most simple words. A rejection or dishonor of son would be, in effect, an ignominy to father not because ‘son and father are one’ (in god-head), as Rogers mistakenly interprets, but because it was father who “commissioned” son on the mission.

There is a striking resemblance of our argument of George Bush and Rice to scholar Henry’s “Prince” and “Ambassador”. Henry argues that because “Prince” dispatches “ambassador” subsequently an affront on “ambassador” should/would reflect on “Prince”; nevertheless, if we were to follow Rogers’ fallacious logic then we would have to concur that Henry’s ‘Prince and Ambassador are (also) one’, which of course would be awfully ignorant!

Biblical Jesus: A Marionette Judge

So much for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency disparity as God – Almighty. Let us now move on to Rogers’ next argument, namely, “Judgment”. This is another rife argument sometimes over used by Christian apologists to pull out their fast ones, nevertheless, we are again going to experience, as usual, the sheer hollowness in it to hallow Jesus (peace be upon him).

For Rogers, “and that all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.)” and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty.

To examine Rogers’ case let us quote the texts in question:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:22-23, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Or,

Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge, so that all will honor the Son in the same way as they honor the Father.” (John 5:22-23, TEV. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Rogers would die hard to point out two arguments in support of alleged divinity of Christ (peace be upon him) in the above quoted verses, however, here we are only interested in “Judgment” argument. We would take up the case of honor to son and father in the subsequent section.

Firstly, observe that the texts states that Father has COMMITTED or GIVEN the rights of Judgment to Jesus (peace be upon him) that is even conceded by Rogers when he wrote that “…judgment was given into His hands”. This in turn, proves that the prerogatives of Judgment was/did not, essentially belong to Jesus (peace be upon him) rather they had to be conferred on to him from higher authority.

Furthermore, even when Jesus (peace be upon him) was practicing Rogers’ blended divine Judgment (which would entitle him to god) he was truthful to menace Christian claims; he conceded that his judgments are not his judgment but of “Father”:

“I can of mine own self do nothing: AS I HEAR, I JUDGE: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John 5:30, King James (1611) Bible. Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

As a matter of fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) categorically disowns any divine judgment on his behalf. He clarifies that he does not has any judgment of his own but as he hears it or that he does not has his personal will but the orders, decrees etc of the father who has sent him.

In other words, even if Jesus (peace be upon him) was to judge the entire world he would judge them as he would “hear” it from father. Therefore, in so many different words the biblical texts insinuates that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) judgments are only vicarious, second hand judgments which can be anything but divine. 

As we have already read in John 5:30 (above) that Jesus (peace be upon him) judges according to the will of God – Almighty, however, John 5:30 is not the only place in the Gospel which declares so.

After declaring that his (peace be upon him) judgments are not his, Jesus (peace be upon him) categorically proclaims that there is only father who judges:

“And I seek not mine own glory: THERE IS ONE THAT SEEKETH AND JUDGETH.” (John 8:50, King James (1611) Bible. Capital, Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that unlike John 5:30 where Jesus declares that his judgments are not his but as he “hears” them; in John 8:50 Jesus (peace be upon him) clearly declares that there is someone else who judges, namely, father.

It is yet observable that unlike Jesus (peace be upon him) father has not to “hear” from any other source to pass judgments. This once again builds strong argument against the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) on the grounds of “judgments”.

Moreover, the Books of Acts distinctly supports Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement of John 5:30 that he (peace be upon him) would only be an agent in God’s judgments:

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD in righteousness BY THAT MAN WHOM HE HATH ORDAINED; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

There cannot be any clearer statement than the one adduced above adjudging that the God – Almighty who is ONE (John 8:50) will JUDGE THE WORLD through Jesus, (“that man”, peace be upon him).

When the above cited verse which comprises of important clauses that father will judge the world by Jesus (peace be upon him), is read in conjunction with John 5:30 which reads that Jesus (peace be upon him) judges as he “hears” from his father then the only interpretation crops up which is that Jesus (peace be upon him) was/would be just a device, an agent through which God – Almighty will facilitate his judgments.

As if it was not enough, Bible inherently responds to Rogers’ argument if he persists to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) has divine authority to pass judgments.

To make matters more embarrassing for Rogers, his so called Scriptures declare that even apostles and saints will have authority to judge, not mortals, but aerial creatures, namely, Angels, which would certainly establish these judging saints and apostles to no lower position to Jesus (peace be upon him) at least on the yardstick of “judgment”:

“Do ye not know that the SAINTS SHALL JUDGE THE WORLD? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that WE SHALL JUDGE ANGELS? how much more things that pertain to this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3, King James (1611) Bible. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

If Jesus (peace be upon him) is god (God forbid) because he would judge man then in Rogers’ polytheistic Christianity saints are at par with Jesus (peace be upon him) as claimants of God head and apostles should be greater ‘Gods’ than Jesus (peace be upon him) because they would be judging greater beings than men, namely, the Angels! Let Rogers go to his Church and proclaim this new “good news” to his pastor.

Things get worst for Rogers (and Christianity) when leading Bible commentator Barnes comments. Not only does Barnes declare that saints should judge angels but they would also be ASSOCIATED with Jesus (peace be upon him) in his (alleged) judgment:

“it is the only one which gives a fair interpretation to the declaration that the saints should judge angels in 1Co_6:3. If asked “in what way” this is to be done, it may be answered, that it may be meant simply that Christians shall be exalted to the right hand of the Judge, and shall encompass his throne; that they shall assent to, and approve of his judgment, that they shall be elevated to a post of honor and favor, as if they were ASSOCIATED with him in the Judgment.” (Barnes’ Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:2. Bold, Italics and underline emphasize ours)

In the first place notice that Barnes starts with an assertion that there is absolutely no equivocation to the fact that “saints should judge angels” as per 1 Corinthians 6:3, therefore, there is nothing divine if Jesus (peace be upon him) judges mere humans.

However, more importantly than judging angels; Barnes elicits the capacity in which the saints would judge. He comments that the saints would be “elevated” to such “honor” from where they would be “ASSOCIATED with him in the Judgment”. In other words, Christians would share and associate with Jesus (peace be upon him) – the alleged god of Rogers.

Ironically for Rogers, who until now, was championing the “close association” between Mohammad (peace be upon him) Allah (SWT) (pertaining to “submission”) to negate single and only deity of Allah (SWT) – forgot to give his ‘scriptures’ a thought where “saintS” would be “ASSOCIATED” with Jesus (peace be upon him) in his judgments. Therefore, before Rogers would attack Islam, he should reconsider his faith and join one of the many cults in his Christianity which has already understood the “close association” between saints and Jesus (peace be upon him) and started worship of saints alongside Jesus (peace be upon him)!

Another observable point is that Barnes states that “Christians” would be ‘exalted’ to the “RIGHT HAND of the Judge”. Now here is something very intriguing and polytheistic. We often read many claims from Christian apologists that Jesus (peace be upon him) is god because he would be exalted on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55, Romans 8:34) nevertheless, such claims are only hollow because even “Christians” would be “exalted to the right hand of the Judge” or else even lay “Christians” are gods in the pagan inspired Christian godhead.

No wonder numerous respected Christians of the likes of Johnson, Mc Garvey etc respectively, acceded to acknowledge the “close association” between saints and Jesus (peace be upon him) in their own words:

“The saints shall judge the world, BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION WITH THE MESSIAH, to whom all judgment is committed” (Source. Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

“The saints will only participate AS MYSTICALLY UNITED WITH CHRIST the judge.” (Source, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

It is not just the exclusive right of Jesus (peace be upon him) or saints to judge, nevertheless, even the twelve apostles would be “associated close” enough to judge:

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.” (Matthew 19:28, King James (1611) Bible. Capital and Bold emphasize ours)

So much for Jesus acting as Judge, we give list of recommended articles on the same issue:

Jesus the Judge?

Who Judges?

Is Jesus God Because He Will Judge The People?

To recapitulate, Rogers’ argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God because he would/will/was judge is unjustified on the following grounds:-

  1. Father – the sole and main judge through whom Jesus, peace be upon him, would derive his judgments.
  1. Jesus (peace be upon him) would only be a device to facilitate fathers judgment. In other words, Jesus (peace be upon him) would practice vicarious judgments.
  1. Bible speaks that even “Saints” and “Christians” would judge, let alone higher beings than humans, namely, “Angels”.
  1. Moreover, “Saints” would collaborate to “associate” with Jesus (peace be upon him) to judge thereby further endangering Jesus’ (peace be upon him) absolute capacity to judge.
  1. Lastly, not to skip that the so called biblical “Saints” and “Christians” would be ‘exalted’ to the right hand” of God – a place, which for many Christians, including apologists, is a reserved place for second deity in the godhead!

Equal Honor with Father

After the “judgment” episode let us now move on to Rogers’ next argument, namely, “Equal honor”.

Rogers contended:

“Jesus isn’t simply to be honored in the same way or to the same degree as other creatures sent by God are to be honored, or even to a degree that is slightly or even significantly greater than other creatures but which still falls short of the honor that is due to God; instead, Jesus says that He is to be honored “just as” the Father is honored.” (Bold emphasize ours)

It is perspicuous that Rogers centralizes his sin of “Shirk” around the phrase “just as”. For him, because the son is to be honored “just as” the father therefore son is also god. If that is the case then it becomes of paramount importance to analyze the “just as” phrase.

Contextual Response

To understand the proper usage of the phrase “just as” we will have to consider the context, that is, John Chapter 5, verses 20 through 23.

In verses 20 through 22, John informs that father will “show” or in other words teach/allow Jesus (peace be upon him) for greater miracles even more so that father would permit Jesus to judge people. All these favors from father for Jesus (peace be upon him) was compensation of Jewish persecutions upon him, (John 5:16).

As a result, father, through his favors upon Jesus (peace be upon him), wanted people to acknowledge him so “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

Subsequently, the emphasize is not upon the degree or capacity of honor for the son, nevertheless, the stress is upon the recognition of the son as father’s sent ambassador so much so that his acknowledgment is equally important as the acknowledgement of father. This is further elicited and supported by latter sentence which states that one who dishonors son dishonors father.

 As celebrated Bible commentator Henry explains why a dishonor to son is an injury to father:

The reason of this is because the Son is SENT and COMMISSIONED by the Father; it is the Father who hath sent him. Affronts to an ambassador are justly resented by the prince that sends him. And by this rule those who truly honour the Son honour the Father also;” (Henry’s Commentary, John 5:17-30. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

However, if we were to take the textual phrase “even as they” to mean honor of equal capacity to son as applicable to father then we would have its serious implications to further compound Christianity’s problem of count of deities. This is because we find biblical instances elsewhere where Jesus (peace be upon him) literally exhorts his disciples to be “just as” father:

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The above biblical verse is as limpid as it could be. Jesus (peace be upon him) expects his disciples to be perfect “just as” their father. At this point there can be two interpretational bifurcations:

Firstly, when “perfection”, as used in the text, is not taken in it’s literal capacity or degree but objectively and/or qualitatively.  

Secondly, when we interpret “perfection” in its literal capacity as Rogers tried to interpret in John 5:23. That is equal “perfection” to disciples as befitting to father. Such an interpretation would then attribute the divine quality of perfectness to, at least, twelve disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him), thereby, elevating them to the same platform where Christianity’s first god (!) – the father stands. Notwithstanding Christianity’s already aggravated monotheism, Rogers has culled out, at least, twelve more gods for his religion, otherwise!

Therefore, the only way how Rogers can reconcile the above rigmarole is by interpreting the “even as” phrase (in Matthew 5:48) and “just as” phrase (in John 5:23) objectively and/or qualitatively, and not in capacity or degree.

Yet because Rogers would gloat in his adamant tri – theism there by chanting and re – chanting words of “Shirk” such as these,

“…the same honor that is due to the Father is to be given to Jesus. Those who refuse to do so do not honor the Father, for the honor that is to be given to both is one and the same, and the reason both are to be honored is one and the same: The Father and the Son are one in power, glory, and judgment.” (Bold emphasize ours)

Let us quote another biblical verse which would, yet again, impute divinity to innumerable, if not the twelve immediate disciples, if we were to interpret the “just as” phrase as Rogers interprets:

“I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, JUST AS you are in me and I am in you. May they be on, so that the world will believe that you sent me. I GAVE THEM THE SAME GLORY YOU GAVE ME, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one: I in them and you in me, so that they may be completely one, in order that the world may know that you sent me and that you love them (JUST) AS you love me.” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-23, Today’s English Version. Bold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Ironically and embarrassingly for Rogers, we find in the above cited verse, “same glory” being shared between Jesus (peace be upon him) and his disciples and this verse specifically responds to Rogers’ “just as” fuss. If we comport with Rogers’ argument in support of deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) from John 5:23 that because people are to tender “same honor” to Jesus (peace be upon him) as they offer to father then according to John 17:22 (above) the “same honor” was furthered to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples, thereby, exalting them to such a jeopardizing level where the disciples would be deified besides already three gods in Christianity.

We enquire Rogers that if Jesus (peace be upon him) can be deified just because he is to be honored “just as” the father, or, in other words, because the capacity of honor offered to Jesus (peace be upon him) and father is the same thus, a proof that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a deity. Then, why not on the same argumentative lines even disciples, if not more Christians, be also deified because even they possess the “(same) glory” just as Jesus (peace be upon him) possess. In other words, the degree of glory, respect etc in Jesus (peace be upon him) and disciples is the “same”.

Therefore, Rogers’ argument, “…the reason both are to be honored is one and the same: The Father and the Son are one in power, glory, and judgment.” backfires abruptly against him and his religion since even Jesus (peace be upon him) and disciples “are one in glory

As a matter of fact celebrated Gospel commentator Wesley alludes to the over perilously exalted status of disciples in his own words:

“Joh 17:22  The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them – The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians.” (Wesley’s Commentary, John 17:22. Capitalized, Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

It is not Wesley alone but even commentator Henry implies to the deification of Christians in even stronger terms:

“Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of him, of being laid in his bosom, and designed for a place at his right hand, was the glory which the Father gave to the Redeemer, and he has confirmed it to the redeemed.” (Henry’s Commentary, John 17:20-23. Bold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Acknowledge that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have to share (1.) his exclusive cozy corner in his father’s big bosom with his disciples (2.) He would even have to renounce his exclusive right of a place in father’s right hand (3.) Lastly and most importantly, he would have to apportion his so called ‘divine’ glory with laities of Christianity.

No wonder, if we interpret the matter of “same honor” according to Rogers’ perspective then the amplified greatness of the majesty of Christians should certainly deify them since they (disciples, at least) share the “same honor” with Rogers’ MYTHOlogical “god – man”.

Therefore, because of the reasons, explanations and problems expounded in the sections, namely, “Biblical Jesus: A Marionette Judge” and “Equal Honor with Father” and elsewhere, it is weightless to consider any argument whether Jesus (peace be upon him) would judge few or “all” people or whether he would have to be honored by few or many,

The view that Anonymous holds would be slightly more believable if only a certain group of people were required to honor the Son (a limited number of people over whom such judgments held sway), and if only a certain circumscribed right to judge was given to Jesus (one that fell short of the final judgment of God Almighty, where all men will be raised up and when all men throughout history, from Adam to the last person born, will be judged for every thought, word, and deed, a feat that requires nothing short of omniscience). Yet, as it is, the text requires all men to honor the Son, and it says that all judgment has been committed to the Son; and, thus, the right of universal judgment that was given to him was not for the purpose that people would “make no distinction” between Jesus and any or all other persons who are worthy of respect, but so that all men would honor Jesus just as they honor the Father.” (Bold emphasize ours)

Conclusion

As Rogers announced that he is yet incomplete and therefore “several matters” pertaining to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity would have to be dealt in his “fourth and final rebuttal”, he would also take up Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophet hood and Paul’s apostleship in his final installment. That being the case we welcome his responses with an expectation that he would come up with something better in his ultimate “rebuttal”; at least, better than what we have read in his last three “rebuttals”.

As for now we have seen that rather than doing any good to Christianity – Rogers’ arguments have failed to establish any so called imputed divinity to Christ (peace be upon him). Moreover, it was not hard to realize how drastically Rogers’ argument in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity recoiled and backfired upon him and his religion erecting myriad more deities besides, creating pagan like family of gods, however, these were only expected.

 

Footnotes:

#fn1: As a matter of fact the enormity of crime in worshipping beings or stocks besides Allah does not only end up with Jesus, peace be upon him. We do not have any personal animosity against Christians or Christ, peace be upon him. We repel worship of Mohammad, peace be upon him, to the same extent as with Jesus or any other prophet, peace be upon them all.

#fn2: In Islam, it is an act of outright blasphemy to disgrace any prophet. We wrote it just to elicit the fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, cannot be God.

All biblical verse, unless otherwise mentioned, quoted from King James (1611) Bible.

Note: Anthony Rogers quoted Christian scholar William Hendriksen to support deity of Jesus (peace be upon him), God-Willing we would include a response to it in our fourth rebuttal.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: