A Further Reply to a Muslim Dawagandist
Bassam Zawadi has produced a "reply" (*) to my through refutation of his assertion that the Trinity is logically incoherent (1, 2).
Exposing Zawadi’s Smokescreens and Evasion Tactics
Zawadi begins his "response" by brushing aside my exegesis of John 17:3 in its immediate and overall contexts by claiming that 85% of my arguments were red herrings, which is simply his way of admitting that he was overwhelmed by the documentation and knew he couldn’t produce a coherent reply to my points. He also links to a series of Unitarian articles which he erroneously assumes have refuted the exegesis of Trinitarian scholarship. Zawadi thinks it is about multiplying links, when it is actually about refuting a point and establishing one’s position, none of which either he or his Unitarian cohorts have been able to do thus far.
Yet two can play that game. Here are articles and links to scholars and apologists who have thoroughly refuted the eisegesis and distortion of the Holy Bible by these so-called Christians:
http://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jn10-34-36.html
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.3.03.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/john1_1_eb.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_2cor4_4.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_mk_12_29.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/john10_34-36.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/jesus_equality.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christology.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/worship.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/latreuo.htm
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/proverbs30_4_1.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_john20_28.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_jesus_preexistence.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_glory.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_thomas.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_thomas2.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_thomas3.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_sabbath_lord.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_angel_of_lord.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_sabbath_lord2a.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_sabbath_lord2b.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_honor_jesus.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn5_19.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn5_23.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn8_58.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/John%20858.pdf
http://forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn17_3.htm
http://jude3.net/trinityjohn.htm
http://www.geocities.com/adaniels700/gospeltruths.html?1067540543700
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0018a.html
Reading John 17:3 in light of Unitarian Assumptions and Liberal-Critical Scholarship
As if he couldn’t make it any more obvious that he is clearly way over his head, and that he is desperately seeking a way out of the mess he created for himself, he cites a liberal-critical Catholic NT scholar, the late Raymond E. Brown, to prove that John’s Gospel was perhaps authored by more than one person and that it may have gone through stages of development! He then has the audacity to ask,
Thus, why should we believe that there must be consistency through out the Gospel of John? Isn't it possible that someone might have had Unitarian beliefs and wrote John 17:3, while the other might have had Trinitarian beliefs and authored John 1:1 (John 1:1 does not clearly teach the divinity of Jesus, but I won't pursue this argument at this point)? Shamoun erroneously assumes that all the verses in the Gospel of John must be at harmony with each other, while there is no reason to believe so.
Is this the same Zawadi who elsewhere wrote,
My Response:
No we don't, we argue that there is only true God just like HOW JESUS MADE IT CLEAR that the Father is the only true God...
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Therefore, when you call Jesus God you associate partners with God. That is our problem. It is the problem of polytheism. Islam is a monotheistic faith. The trinity is not. Christians THINK that they believe in one God but they really don't. (Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "On The Philosophical Necessity of the Trinity Based On The Attributes Of God; source1 , source 2; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
Therefore, the words COMING OUT OF JESUS’ MOUTH were not really his but from the Father who is the ONLY TRUE GOD...
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
SO WHEN JESUS SAID that his words are eternal that really meant that it was God's words and not his that was eternal. So Jesus is not God.
(Is Jesus God Because He Said That His Words Will Never Pass Away?; source; capital and underline emphasis ours)
That same Zawadi? So when it is convenient to his position Zawadi will quote specific Biblical verses as the words of Jesus, but when that same book or chapter is then used to refute him Zawadi will appeal to liberal scholarship to undermine the veracity of the Biblical text! Truly amazing.
Moreover, to show you how non-sensical Zawadi’s point is that a Unitarian may have written John 17:3 note, once again, the immediate context:
"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that HE [the Son] might give eternal life to all those you have given him… I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.’" John 17:1-2, 4-5
Christ states that he is the Son of God who existed with the Father in the same glory before the world was created and who gives eternal life to all that the Father gives him. Now contrast this with what is stated in the prologue of John 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men… He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, HE [Christ] gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1-4, 10-14
John, in agreement with Jesus, says that Christ as the preincarnate Word not only existed before the world began, but that he was there even before creation itself since he brought it into being! The Evangelist further writes that Christ is Life (which again perfectly agrees with what Jesus said concerning his own Person [cf. 5:21, 25-26, 28-29; 6:32-33, 35-40, 47-51, 53-58; 11:25-26; 14:6]), and that all who believe in him become children of God, which is simply another way of saying that believers are granted eternal life through Christ.
The above conclusively demonstrates that even if we were to assume that the Gospel of John went through three stages of development this doesn’t mean that any of the alleged composers of these various stages held to conflicting views concerning Christ. The entirety of the Gospel teaches that Jesus Christ is the preexistent Divine Son of God who came down from heaven to save mankind. The onus of proof is upon Zawadi to show that different stages somehow prove that varying and conflicting Christologies exist. After all, even Brown doesn’t claim that his three-stage hypothesis implies that we have different and competing Christologies.
And John 1:1 DOES prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Lord Jesus has eternally existed as God and in fellowship with God. See the above links for the evidence.
We will have more to say concerning the relationship of the Prologue to John 17 shortly.
Zawadi then continues to expose his ignorance of basic Christian theology and provides another example of his unitarian bias:
First of all, even if the passage said that Jesus is the only God (which it doesn't as I will show) then that doesn't solve the problem. There would still be a logical contradiction, for the Father and the Son at the same time cannot be the ONLY true God since they are different persons.
Zawadi, again, imposes his unitarian presuppositions into his reading of the Holy Bible by claiming that since the Father and the Son are two Persons they both cannot be the only true God at the same time. He will later say:
Shamoun is uttering what I stated in my article to be ludicrous. It is logically impossible for the Father who is a different person from the Son and Holy Spirit to be the only true God at the same time when the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well.
Does this neophyte bother to read the refutations to his assertions? Wasn’t he specifically told that he cannot assume his conclusion without first proving it? Has he proven that the Holy Bible teaches that God is uni-personal, and that the Father alone is the only true God? No, not at all. He simply evades addressing the massive Biblical data which conclusively proves that God’s existence is unlike ours in that he is not simply one Being who exists as one Person. Rather, he is one Being who exists as three distinct, yet inseparable Persons. Thus, both the Father and the Son can both be the true God without having to be the same Person since, unlike angels, humans and animals, God doesn’t exist as a uni-personal Being.
To make matters worse Zawadi continues to display his ignorance by making some rather incoherent statements:
Shamoun is attacking straw man. I never said that it is impossible or illogical for God to have three centers of consciousness. I already stated in the beginning of my article that it is quite possible to make sense out of such a thing:
you would realize that what these Christians are doing is redefining or putting forth the notion of Trinity in a way that could be possible for it to be logically comprehended.
We thank Zawadi for agreeing that there is nothing illogical about God having three centers of consciousness, which is simply another way of saying that God exists as three distinct Persons. So, then, what was the point of his article? Zawadi has only proven my contention that it is because he presupposes unitarianism that he erroneously thinks that the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be the only true God since Jesus said that the Father is the only true God.
The title of my article was "Is the Trinity Logically Coherent In Light of Biblical Teachings?"
I argued that if God is uni-personal then it means that each person in the God head is truly God. It is not possible that only one out of the persons in the Godhead is God while at the same time the others are God as well.
This dawagandist is really confused since for God to be uni-personal means that he cannot be more than one Person with more than one center of consciousness. So why in the world is he talking about distinct persons when discussing a uni-personal God?
Also, I hope the readers don't misunderstand my position and think that I actually agree that when the Trinity is defined then it means monotheism. I only take the position that it is "logically comprehended" in that it could make sense to say "One being with three centers of consciousness", but I would still maintain that such a belief is polytheistic.
The better question is, did Zawadi understand his own position with all of his incoherent babble? How can the belief that God is one Being with three centers of consciousness be polytheistic? It is no more polytheistic than God existing as one Being with multiple attributes. Zawadi couldn’t have demonstrated his inconsistency and incoherence any better.
One being/essence which is divine and is shared by three different people still gives you three Gods. Sure, you can have one being, but having one being does not mean that it is one God. It is only one being that is shared by three different Gods.
Zawadi keeps making assertions without bothering to prove them. Who says that one being/essence shared by three distinct Persons necessarily and automatically makes them three Gods? The Holy Bible? Zawadi’s false prophet or false scripture? Moreover, notice how Zawadi’s statements liken God to his creation again. It is true that humans may share a common essence without this implying that there is only one human person or being, but why should we automatically assume that God’s essence and existence is like that, especially when the Holy Bible and Zawadi’s false prophet both say that God is unlike his creation?
John 17:3 – The Key Which Unlocks the Meaning of the Entire Gospel?
Zawadi claims that John 17:3 is the hermeneutical key in understanding all the other verses:
I contend that John 17:3 is the hermeneutical key that one should use to understand all the other verses for it is unambiguous and clear, unlike the verses that Shamoun put forth to try and show that Jesus is divine.
In the first place, how can a verse that comes near the end of the Book be the key to understanding the entire theme or theology of this specific writing? Doesn’t it make more sense to read the prologue of John, i.e. 1:1-18, in order to understand the point of this particular writer since this is where he will mention all of the major themes which he will later discuss in more depth?
Moreover, Zawadi doesn’t realize that even this so-called key text undermines his entire case against the Deity of the Lord Jesus. Note, carefully, what the Lord Jesus says:
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
Eternal life is to intimately know both the Father AND the Son equally.
The reason why it is vitally important to know the Son just as intimately as one knows the Father is because it is the Son who has come to reveal God to us:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." John 1:18
John explains this in his first epistle:
"We know also 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—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."1 John 5:20
And:
"It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father." John 6:45-46
Here, Jesus explains that the reason why all who learn from God inevitably come to him is because he alone knows and comprehends God since he is from him, and therefore the only One fully qualified to perfectly make God’s nature known to man. Christ makes the very same point in the Synoptics:
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Matthew 11:27 – cf. Luke 10:22
Returning to John’s writings we are further told:
"And Jesus cried out and said, ‘Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.’" John 12:44-45 ESV
"‘If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’ Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered: ‘Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.’" John 14:7-11
"If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father." John 15:24 ESV
NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up the point of Jesus coming to reveal God and explains Christ’s claim that seeing him is to see the Father:
"Central to the Christian tradition is the belief that God as he is in himself cannot be seen by the physical eye; he is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 4:12). No one has seen him or can see him (1 Tim. 6:16). But equally central is the conviction that, in Christ, God the Father has revealed himself perfectly. Jesus Christ has accurately and comprehensively made visible the invisible nature of God:
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is God and who resides in the Father’s heart– he has revealed him. (John 1:18, my translation)
"Only the Son who shares the divine nature (cf. John 1:1) is qualified to reveal the Father personally and completely. John’s compound verb (exegesato, ‘he has revealed’) implies the perfection of God’s self-revelation in Christ. In response to Philip’s request. ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us’ (John 14:8), Jesus remarked, ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9).
"It is not only the apostle John who expresses this view of the role of Jesus. Paul depicts Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15). That is, he is the exact and visible expression of a God who has not been seen and cannot be seen. Then there is the author of Hebrews, who declares that ‘the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’ (Heb. 1:3). The two Greek terms in this verse are colorful. Apaugasma (‘radiance’) pictures Christ as the ‘outshining’ or ‘effulgence’ or ‘irradiated brightness’ of God the Father’s inherent glory. Charakter (‘exact representation’) points to Christ as the flawless expression of God’s nature, one who is indelibly stamped with God’s character." (Harris, Three Crucial Questions about Jesus [Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1994], pp. 70-71)
And:
"… John’s point in the verse [John 1:18] is that, although no person on earth can claim to have gained knowledge of God as he is in himself, Jesus Christ, the only Son, has accurately and fully revealed God to humankind, since he himself is God by nature and intimately acquainted with the Father by experience." (Ibid, p. 94; comments within brackets ours)
Moreover, it is the Son who has the words and commands which lead to eternal life:
"‘The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ … Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:63, 68-69
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say." John 12:47-50
And according to the words which Christ brought, a person must believe in the unique Son for eternal life; otherwise one will stand condemned for refusing to believe in God’s beloved Son:
"‘Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.’ … Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:16-18, 36
"But he continued, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I AM, you will indeed die in your sins.’" John 8:23-24
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." John 1:12-13
"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31
"We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:9-13
Once a person believes in Jesus he will then grant him/her eternal life and raise him/her up at the last day:
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day… No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day… I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:37-40, 44, 47
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 10:27-30
The reason why Jesus is able to give eternal life to his followers is because he is Life itself:
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it… I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:21, 24-29
"Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha answered, ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.’" John 11:23-27
"‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; TRUST ALSO IN ME. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through me.’" John 14:1-6
Who came to offer his life as a sacrificial ransom for the sins of the world:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, "A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me." I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’ Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, "The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit." I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’ The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’" John 1:29-36
"Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe… But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ … Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.’" John 6:35-36, 50-51, 53-58
Thus, instead of refuting the Deity of the Lord Jesus John 17:3 actually presupposes the Son’s essential coequality with the Father since salvation is just as much the work of the Son as it is the work of the Father, which is why a person must believe in both of them equally in order to be saved:
"Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, ‘He told me everything I ever did.’ So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers. They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’" John 4:39-42
"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins… We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." 1 John 4:9-10, 13-14
"After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, AND TO THE LAMB.’ All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: ‘Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!’ Then one of the elders asked me, ‘These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?’ I answered, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said, ‘These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, ‘they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’" Revelation 7:9-17
As the following commentaries explain:
… The Arians and Unitarians urge this text, against the true and proper deity of our Lord Jesus, and his equality with the Father, but without success; since the Father is called the only true God, in opposition to the many false gods of the Heathens, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit; for Christ is also styled the one Lord, and only Lord God, but not to the exclusion of the Father; yea the true God and eternal life; was he not, he would never, as here, join himself with the only true God; and besides, eternal life is made to depend as much upon the knowledge of him, as of the Father. The reason of this different mode of expression, is owing to the character of Christ as Mediator, who is said to be sent by the only true God, about the business of man's salvation… (The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; source; underline emphasis ours)
And:
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent--This is the only place where our Lord gives Himself this compound name, afterwards so current in apostolic preaching and writing. Here the terms are used in their strict signification--"JESUS," because He "saves His people from their sins"; "CHRIST," as anointed with the measureless fulness of the Holy Ghost for the exercise of His saving offices (see on Mt 1:16); "WHOM THOU HAST SENT," in the plenitude of Divine Authority and Power, to save. "The very juxtaposition here of Jesus Christ with the Father is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable" [ALFORD]. (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; source; underline emphasis ours)
Reexamining Jude 1:4 in light of Zawadi’s distortions and rabbit trails
Zawadi argues that Jude 1:4 doesn’t say that Jesus is our only Sovereign and Lord by appealing to the King James Version,
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
And proceeds to post a series of commentaries which distinguish between the only Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As if he couldn’t demonstrate his confusion any further he quotes Christian scholar J.N.D. Kelly:
The late conservative Church historian J. N. D. Kelly translated the verse as follows: "... who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ." (p. 245).
Kelly then comments (p. 252):"The second charge is that they deny the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. both God the Father and Christ (so RVm; RSVm; NEBm). The alternative translation, 'deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ' (AV; RV; RSV; NEB) is equally possible linguistically, and the decision between them is not easy. The fact that there is a definite article before only master and none before our Lord J.C. might seem to suggest that the whole complex expression applies to a single person, but this argument cannot be pressed: the article is often omitted before 'God', 'Lord', and the like ... A weightier point is that 2 Pet. ii. I, which is modelled on this phrase, evidently understood Master as referring to Christ; but the ambiguity must have been as real and puzzling soon after it was written as it is today."
(J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Black's New Testament Commentaries), 1977, A & C Black, London.)
Zawadi has only managed to embarrass himself at this point and proven once again that he doesn’t understand what he reads. Zawadi has confused the issue of translation with a textual variant that is found in Jude 1:4. The reason why the King James Version and some of the commentaries have the rendering, "the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ," is because this is the reading that is found in the later Greek manuscripts (MSS). The early, better attested reading is that which is found in more modern versions:
"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." ESV
As the late renowned NT Greek textual critic Bruce M. Metzger noted:
ver. 4 despoten {A}
Since despotes was sometimes used by Greek writers to refer to God (in the New Testament at Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; Re 6:10), the Textus Receptus, following K L P Ψ and many minuscules, added theon in order more clearly to distinguish from the following kyrion hemon ‘Iesoun Christon. In later manuscripts many other variant readings are found (see also the following comment).
ver. 4 hemon ‘Iesoun Christon {A}
Despite many occasional variant readings, the wording of the text is strongly supported by (P72) P78 א A B C Ψ 33 81 1739 al. (A Textual Commentary on the New Testament – A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), by Bruce Metzger [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society, Stuttgart, Second Edition 1998], pp. 656-657)
{A} indicates that "our only Master/Sovereign and Lord Jesus Christ" is certain, and therefore the original reading. This is why the critical notes to the NET Bible state,
20 tc Most later witnesses (P Ψ Ï sy) have θεόν (qeon, “God”) after δεσπότην (despothn, “master”), which appears to be a motivated reading in that it explicitly links “Master” to “God” in keeping with the normal NT pattern (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Rev 6:10). In patristic Greek, δεσπότης (despoth") was used especially of God (cf. BDAG 220 s.v. 1.b.). The earlier and better witnesses (Ì72,78 א A B C 0251 33 81 323 1241 1739 al co) lack θεόν; the shorter reading is thus preferred on both internal and external grounds. (Source)
Now as far as the reading "our only Master/Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ" is concerned, there is no dispute whether this is the proper translation since it is a Granville Sharp construction, which means that both nouns have the same referent in view, namely Christ,
21 tn The terms “Master and Lord” both refer to the same person. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. For more discussion see ExSyn 270-78. See also Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (NETBible)
For a thorough discussion of this Greek grammatical construction we recommend the following articles (1, 2).
Zawadi further embarrasses himself when he writes:
To make things worse for the Trinitarian the Greek word kai could also mean "even" and not necessarily "and". Thus, the verse could be safely read as:
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God even our Lord Jesus Christ.
Doesn’t Zawadi realize that his preferred translation of the conjunction kai actually proves that Jesus is being called God? After all, his rendering implies that the conjunction identifies Jesus as the only Lord God since it serves to make what follows epexegetic or an apposition to what precedes it, i.e. "the only Lord God who is our Lord Jesus Christ," or "the only Lord God, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ."
This concludes the first part. Please continue to the second part of our rebuttal.
Rebuttals to Bassam Zawadi
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page