World Vision are collecting donations to help the relief efforts in Chile. See:
http://smart-products.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/27/4646374.htm
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Yahya Snow Vs Sam Shamoun on John1 1:19-21
All my responses to Sam Shamoun on this subject can be viewed here, they are in chronological order too. For those who are interested further I do ask them to view Shamoun's material on this topic. I feel the debate went extremely well for my position and subsequently showed Shamoun's views to be lacking in substance and authority.
1. The first response consisted of an article and a YouTube audio presentation which counters shamoun's claims on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network.:
Is John1:19-21 Referring to Prophet Muhammed?
It has become a common argument from the Muslim camp to suggest to the Christian that John 1 contains a reference to Prophet Muhammed. This reference is not an explicit reference by name but an implicit reference by the title of “the Prophet” which is not referring to the Prophet Jesus (the Christ). This argument can be found in the first appendix which provides a link to the Muslim claim.
The evangelical Christian camp, however, have stepped up efforts to counter this Muslim claim. This is the reason of my writing of this short paper; the Christian camp in the form of an apologist for Christianity, Sam Shamoun, did comment on this claim and attempted a refutation on the ABN (Aramaic Broadcasting Network).
Intellectual honesty
As a word of note to the readers; if the response by Shamoun was convincing I would not be writing this as I would have accepted Shamoun’s response in order to be intellectually honest. On the flip-side if Shamoun’s response is insufficient (which is what I feel) I would not accept it as it would be equally intellectually dishonest to do so. Also, in the way of fairness and scholarly etiquette I have appended a link to Shamoun’s response so the more interested reader can listen to it and judge my response with a more potent measuring stick, see the second appendix.
I do ask Shamoun’s Christian audience (as well as any non-Christians amongst his audience) to maintain intellectual honesty and also re-evaluate his views based on my points of contention.Shamoun is a fine orator and puts his points across in an enthusiastic and passionate fashion. I feel his enthusiasm did get the better of him as he began to interpolate his own biased views into the Biblical text spoken of. Allow me to expand upon this.
John 1,19-21
Essentially the passage of John that Shamoun devotes much of his attention to and tries to explain away in a fashion which would exclude an intimation of the Prophet Muhammed from the text (John 1: 19-21)
It is important to quote this text for the reader’s ease of following (John 1:19-21):
1:19 now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
1:20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ."
1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
So we realise the Jewish elite question the John the Baptist, he tells them that he is not the Christ and they proceed to ask him whether he was Elijah or “the Prophet”.
What we glean from this text is that the Christ, Elijah and the Prophet are three separate people and thus the Jews who were questioning John the Baptist were expecting the arrival of three distinct figures in the future; Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet. The Muslim suggests that the Prophet is Muhammed and not the Christ (Jesus), this is a reasonable suggestion in so far as “the Prophet” is distinct and independent from the Christ.
It should also be noted that John the Baptist did not question the Jews concerning “the Prophet” and nor did he seem perplexed once questioned about “the Prophet” which suggests he (John the Baptist), like the Jews, was aware of a Prophet to come who is not Jesus (the Christ). As a note to the lay reader, Christ simple means Messiah (literally the anointed one) in Greek and does not mean God or the son of God.The Muslims have been making this argument for numerous years now concerning this particular passage of John 1. Shamoun’s is an interesting response, superficially it may have sounded pretty convincing to much of his audience but with a little analysis we see gaping holes in his argumentation.
Shamoun is wrong
He initially (wrongly) goes onto impress upon the inquiring Jews of John 1:19-21 his own views which are not supported by the text. His view is that the inquiring Jews believe “the Prophet” to be an Israelite.
This view does not have any Scriptural support from the passage quoted. Shamoun adds this to the equation, he recklessly tells us that the inquiring Jews “knew” that “the Prophet” was an Israelite as John the Baptist was an Israelite. He says this as Muhammed was an Ishmaelite and he is moved by his focus to try and remove any intimation of Muhammed from the passage. Of course being moved by such a task quite naturally leads to an underpinning bias which leads Shamoun into this reckless manipulation of his own Holy Book which yields his warped understanding of the passage.
This is a peculiar understanding which Shamoun states rather forcefully, however it is not only a peculiar understanding which lacks proof from the passage in question but it is an inconsistent view as Shamoun fails to use the same “peculiar” method of exegesis concerning the passage when it mentions the Christ.
Shamoun lacks consistency
Shamoun’s lack of consistency is highlighted by John 1:20 where if he was to use the same far-fetched reasoning and assumption without any authority he should also conclude that John the Baptist believes that the inquiring Jews believed that the Christ was to have a natural birth as John the Baptist tells them that “I am not the Christ”. The inquiring Jews would have known that John the Baptist was not born of a virgin birth but that of a normal birth; therefore Shamoun (being consistent) would conclude the Jews believed Christ to be a man born of a husband and wife. Why Shamoun lacked the consistency to judge the whole passage by his own erroneous yardstick is a mystery. Shamoun simply interpolates his own unfounded assumption into the text; the text does not teach us that “the Prophet” is an Israelite; in fact it does not teach us anything about the lineage of “the Prophet” despite Shamoun’s inconsistent assertion.
Shamoun also suggests that the Jews could have been mistaken when they mentioned “the Prophet”. He suggests that no such Prophet was expected as the inquiring Jews may have believed this erroneously. Well, Shamoun misses the other key party in the conversation; namely the Prophet John the Baptist. In this passage John the Baptist seems to know of “the Prophet” the Jews inquire about as he answers their question concerning him without any hesitation, confusion or any correction/questioning of the existence of “the Prophet” thus we realise John 1:19-21 suggests to us that “the Prophet” is real and was being expected by the Jews and they were not mistaken. Therefore we realise Shamoun’s assertions are lacking firm foundations and Scriptural support.
The facts are important
The facts remain; all we realise from John 1: 19-21 is that the Jews were awaiting three distinct individuals (the Christ, Elijah and “the Prophet”) and they did not believe “the Prophet” to be either Elijah or the Christ. We do not realise Shamoun’s interpolations as the text does not mention anything of the like.
Needless to say Shamoun moves on after his fanciful manipulation of his own text. He tries to convince us, rather erroneously, that “the Prophet” and the Christ are the same person despite the above passage (John 1:19-21) militating against him.
Shamoun uses John 1:45 incorrectlyStrangely enough he tries to use John 1:45 to state this claim. As the reader can see, John 1:45 does not help Shamoun one iota:
John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
In fact Shamoun seems to hesitate in quoting the passage fully as the passage seems to be opposing the Christian doctrine of Jesus divinity and the miraculous birth as Jesus is described as “the son of Joseph” (not the son of God), hence it is unsurprising to me to hear a perceived shift in the intonation of Shamoun’s voice when he came to this part of the verse. Surely this passage opens up a new can of worms for Shamoun and his colleagues.
To address Shamoun thoroughly and to do his points justice I would state that Moses and other Prophets writing about Jesus in the Law (Torah) does not mean the Christ is “the Prophet”. This was a confusing argument which Shamoun presented and the more discerning amongst the audience would have felt the same in my view. Also, as a worrying point of contention for Shamoun and other Christian apologists; Philip seems to be claiming that Moses wrote about Jesus “the son of Joseph”, thus Philip is not only denying the miraculous birth of Jesus but is intimating that Moses wrote about somebody (a Prophet to come) who was to have a natural birth, this could not have been Jesus so the question remains, who is this person? This passage, ironically cited by Shamoun to support his views, does not aid Shamoun at all but further compounds the confusion and leads to a multitude of important questions.
Shamoun and John 5:39-40
Shamoun fluently moves onto John 5: 39-40 and tries to build his argument upon this passage. This passage does not shed any further light on the matter, the readers can judge for themselves:
5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Thus we realise this passage (John 5:39-40) does not support Shamoun’s assertion that “the Prophet” and the Christ are the same person. Shamoun, after much positing of irrelevant or impotent “evidences”, moves onto his main Biblical citation which he believes supports his views that “the Prophet” is the Christ.
Shamoun brings forth the Biblical reference of John 6:14-15:
6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."
6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
Shamoun does not prove anything
Again, this reference does not prove Shamoun’s belief that “the Prophet” and the Christ was the same person. All this reference teaches us is that a group of people saw Jesus performing a “miraculous sign” and then they believed him to be “the Prophet”. There is no mention of the people calling him the Christ as well in this passage and nor is there any mention of the people exclaiming the two are the same person. Suffice it to say Shamoun interpolates his own understanding and imposes it upon the people of this passage without any authority or logical reasoning whatsoever. Even if we go with the view that Jesus is “the Prophet” then the question of who was the Christ arises.
We of course now know that Jesus was the Christ so could not have been “the Prophet” as these two were two distinct people (as gleaned from John 1:19-21). So it is more reasonable to view these people as being mistaken when pronouncing Jesus to be “the Prophet” (other people were mistaken concerning the identity of Jesus in Matthew 16:13-14, which is discussed later) as this would erroneously mean that Jesus was not the Christ unless one adopts Shamoun’s position which requires interpolating an unsubstantiated belief (the belief that the Christ and “the Prophet” are the same person) into the text. That would mean that the Biblical text is prevented from speaking for itself and Shamoun would act as an intermediary between the Bible and the reader.
In fact the context of this passage is that Jesus feeds the five thousand through food multiplication (this is the “miraculous sign” which they observed) the people saw this and then concluded that Jesus was “the Prophet”. Now, we realise from this that the sign of food multiplication is linked to “the Prophet”. If we look at the life of Mohammed we realise he too performed similar miracles of multiplying both food and water and feeding a great number of people due to the miracles [1, 2]. So this strengthens the Muslim claim that “the Prophet” is Mohammad.
What about Jesus?
One, naturally, may ask “what about Jesus”? Well, the context concerning Jesus was that there was much discussion and confusion concerning his identity, even John the Baptist did not know who Jesus was and questioned him. Those who knew of Jesus did not even know who he was so it of no surprise that some people (John 6:14-15) viewed him to be “the Prophet” initially as if we cross reference this with Matthew 16: 13-14 we realise there were many conflicting ideas concerning the identity of Jesus, quite simply people did not know who he was:
Matthew 16:13-14:
13: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14: They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Using Shamoun’s method we would simply combine all these titles and proclaim Jesus to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah and other prophets all in one despite all these being separate entities just like “the Prophet” and the Christ are separate entities.
Rather than using an exaggerated form of Shamoun’s methodology we can simply use the Scripture and logic and realise Jesus was the Christ and therefore was not John, Elijah, Jeremiah or any other prophet. So going back to Shamoun’s point we now know that Jesus is the Christ therefore the people of John 6:14 who claim Jesus to be “the Prophet” are incorrect as the two are not the same person according to the Bible. So Shamoun has a dilemma; either accept the Bible and realise the Christ is not “the Prophet” or manipulate the Bible in order for it to suit his own purposes.
Not only does Matthew 16:13-14 highlight the uncertainty of who Jesus was but it also shows a good number of people did not believe Jesus to be God which is an issue for the Trinitarian Church but is not the focus of this article. Just to further highlight the lack of knowledge concerning who Jesus was we can look to no less than John the Baptist who does not know who Jesus really was (Matthew 11: 1-2):
11:1 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.
11:2 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
This passage further highlights the lack of knowledge concerning Jesus and the potential to misidentify Jesus. As a side note, it further militates against the Trinitarian form of Christianity as John the Baptist (a Prophet) does not recognise Jesus as God.
Shamoun should rethink his views
However, going back to Shamoun’s assertions; surely it would be more logical for Shamoun to free himself from the shackles of bias (and conflicting ideas) and accept either he does not have a full understanding of the text or accept that “the Prophet” is not Jesus but somebody else. If he accepts the issue requires further contemplation and research then that would be admirable as we are all human beings and have huge gaps in our knowledge and of course only God is the All-Knower.
Shamoun does not lose much ground, to his Muslim counterparts either, if he accepts what the Biblical text indicates namely; “the Prophet” was being expected by the Jews and was not Jesus (the Christ) but somebody else. I say Shamoun does not lose much ground to the Muslims in this discussion as Shamoun could quite easily counter and say there is no Biblical proof from this passage that it refers to the Prophet Muhammed and he could go further and say for all the average reader knows is that it could refer to Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or other figures believed to be prophets by their respective followers. The neutrals could point to the fact that the passage was contained within the Gospel of John which scholars view to be the most theologically evolved and thus the least reliable of the four Gospels and they too could argue that the passage is not proof of another Prophet to come yet alone Muhammed.
So Shamoun has room to manoeuvre if he is willing to free himself of his own bias and desire to manipulate the Scripture in order to realise this bias. Shamoun must always remember he is not an intermediary between his audience and the Bible as the audience are well capable of reading and deciding for themselves without the view of Shamoun, otherwise it stops becoming the Bible but becomes Shamoun’s handbook they are reading into.
Summary
Shamoun has no Biblical foundations for his view that “the Prophet” and the Christ is the same person.
John 1: 19-21 clearly indicates that the two people are separate thus rendering Shamoun into the realms of textual acrobatics and interpolations in order to oppose the ideas presented by John 1:19-21. We also realise that there was much confusion as to who Jesus actually was and a miracle of multiplying food and feeding a multitude of people is a key factor in identifying who “the Prophet” was highlighted in John 6:14-15.
We note biblical evidence (John 1:19-21) highlights that the Christ is not “the Prophet” and there is no Biblical evidence to show the two are the same despite Shamoun’s assertions.We also see Philip appearing not to believe in Jesus as God but as a human who was “the son of Joseph” (John 1:45), this passage re-opens the Unitarian arguments.
As a side note, many Muslims would state that Muhammed performed a miracle of feeding the multitude and this is a key identifying feature of “the Prophet”, thus their claims are in fact strengthened by this analysis.
The question still remains; who is “the Prophet”?
Of course the reader is left to go away and independently decide who “the Prophet. was It is not for myself, Shamoun or anybody else for that matter to decide for the reader we can merely put the facts out rather than opinion; that is what I have attempted to do in the course of this paper. I do feel Shamoun lent heavily on supposition and interpolating his own views into Biblical text but if anybody feels I have inadequately dealt with this subject or made a mistake then do contact me and let me know
Thank youSearch for the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.
Note: All Bible references were taken from the New International Version of the Bible
Appendix 1
Link to the Muslim argument suggesting Muhammed is referred to in the Gospel of John:http://www.institutealislam.com/muhammad-in-the-bible-by-dr-jamal-badawi/
And:http://www.institutealislam.com/prophet-muhammad-in-the-bible-by-dr.-zakir-naik/2.
Link to Shamoun’s claims which I responded to in the course of this article (video entitled: Muhammad in the Bible? John 1:19-21):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xHJ7JEQOXQ&feature=channel_page
References
[1] Volume 5, Book 59, Number 428
[2] Volume 4, Book 56, Number 777
This article came with an audio presentation too:
2. Shamoun responded via his appearance on ABN, my response was in the form of an audio presentation on YouTube:
3. My Final response is here, which simply responds to a short piece by shamoun where Shamoun brings very little new material to the discussion:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/final-analysis-on-john-119-21-with-sam.html
1. The first response consisted of an article and a YouTube audio presentation which counters shamoun's claims on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network.:
Is John1:19-21 Referring to Prophet Muhammed?
It has become a common argument from the Muslim camp to suggest to the Christian that John 1 contains a reference to Prophet Muhammed. This reference is not an explicit reference by name but an implicit reference by the title of “the Prophet” which is not referring to the Prophet Jesus (the Christ). This argument can be found in the first appendix which provides a link to the Muslim claim.
The evangelical Christian camp, however, have stepped up efforts to counter this Muslim claim. This is the reason of my writing of this short paper; the Christian camp in the form of an apologist for Christianity, Sam Shamoun, did comment on this claim and attempted a refutation on the ABN (Aramaic Broadcasting Network).
Intellectual honesty
As a word of note to the readers; if the response by Shamoun was convincing I would not be writing this as I would have accepted Shamoun’s response in order to be intellectually honest. On the flip-side if Shamoun’s response is insufficient (which is what I feel) I would not accept it as it would be equally intellectually dishonest to do so. Also, in the way of fairness and scholarly etiquette I have appended a link to Shamoun’s response so the more interested reader can listen to it and judge my response with a more potent measuring stick, see the second appendix.
I do ask Shamoun’s Christian audience (as well as any non-Christians amongst his audience) to maintain intellectual honesty and also re-evaluate his views based on my points of contention.Shamoun is a fine orator and puts his points across in an enthusiastic and passionate fashion. I feel his enthusiasm did get the better of him as he began to interpolate his own biased views into the Biblical text spoken of. Allow me to expand upon this.
John 1,19-21
Essentially the passage of John that Shamoun devotes much of his attention to and tries to explain away in a fashion which would exclude an intimation of the Prophet Muhammed from the text (John 1: 19-21)
It is important to quote this text for the reader’s ease of following (John 1:19-21):
1:19 now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
1:20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ."
1:21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."
So we realise the Jewish elite question the John the Baptist, he tells them that he is not the Christ and they proceed to ask him whether he was Elijah or “the Prophet”.
What we glean from this text is that the Christ, Elijah and the Prophet are three separate people and thus the Jews who were questioning John the Baptist were expecting the arrival of three distinct figures in the future; Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet. The Muslim suggests that the Prophet is Muhammed and not the Christ (Jesus), this is a reasonable suggestion in so far as “the Prophet” is distinct and independent from the Christ.
It should also be noted that John the Baptist did not question the Jews concerning “the Prophet” and nor did he seem perplexed once questioned about “the Prophet” which suggests he (John the Baptist), like the Jews, was aware of a Prophet to come who is not Jesus (the Christ). As a note to the lay reader, Christ simple means Messiah (literally the anointed one) in Greek and does not mean God or the son of God.The Muslims have been making this argument for numerous years now concerning this particular passage of John 1. Shamoun’s is an interesting response, superficially it may have sounded pretty convincing to much of his audience but with a little analysis we see gaping holes in his argumentation.
Shamoun is wrong
He initially (wrongly) goes onto impress upon the inquiring Jews of John 1:19-21 his own views which are not supported by the text. His view is that the inquiring Jews believe “the Prophet” to be an Israelite.
This view does not have any Scriptural support from the passage quoted. Shamoun adds this to the equation, he recklessly tells us that the inquiring Jews “knew” that “the Prophet” was an Israelite as John the Baptist was an Israelite. He says this as Muhammed was an Ishmaelite and he is moved by his focus to try and remove any intimation of Muhammed from the passage. Of course being moved by such a task quite naturally leads to an underpinning bias which leads Shamoun into this reckless manipulation of his own Holy Book which yields his warped understanding of the passage.
This is a peculiar understanding which Shamoun states rather forcefully, however it is not only a peculiar understanding which lacks proof from the passage in question but it is an inconsistent view as Shamoun fails to use the same “peculiar” method of exegesis concerning the passage when it mentions the Christ.
Shamoun lacks consistency
Shamoun’s lack of consistency is highlighted by John 1:20 where if he was to use the same far-fetched reasoning and assumption without any authority he should also conclude that John the Baptist believes that the inquiring Jews believed that the Christ was to have a natural birth as John the Baptist tells them that “I am not the Christ”. The inquiring Jews would have known that John the Baptist was not born of a virgin birth but that of a normal birth; therefore Shamoun (being consistent) would conclude the Jews believed Christ to be a man born of a husband and wife. Why Shamoun lacked the consistency to judge the whole passage by his own erroneous yardstick is a mystery. Shamoun simply interpolates his own unfounded assumption into the text; the text does not teach us that “the Prophet” is an Israelite; in fact it does not teach us anything about the lineage of “the Prophet” despite Shamoun’s inconsistent assertion.
Shamoun also suggests that the Jews could have been mistaken when they mentioned “the Prophet”. He suggests that no such Prophet was expected as the inquiring Jews may have believed this erroneously. Well, Shamoun misses the other key party in the conversation; namely the Prophet John the Baptist. In this passage John the Baptist seems to know of “the Prophet” the Jews inquire about as he answers their question concerning him without any hesitation, confusion or any correction/questioning of the existence of “the Prophet” thus we realise John 1:19-21 suggests to us that “the Prophet” is real and was being expected by the Jews and they were not mistaken. Therefore we realise Shamoun’s assertions are lacking firm foundations and Scriptural support.
The facts are important
The facts remain; all we realise from John 1: 19-21 is that the Jews were awaiting three distinct individuals (the Christ, Elijah and “the Prophet”) and they did not believe “the Prophet” to be either Elijah or the Christ. We do not realise Shamoun’s interpolations as the text does not mention anything of the like.
Needless to say Shamoun moves on after his fanciful manipulation of his own text. He tries to convince us, rather erroneously, that “the Prophet” and the Christ are the same person despite the above passage (John 1:19-21) militating against him.
Shamoun uses John 1:45 incorrectlyStrangely enough he tries to use John 1:45 to state this claim. As the reader can see, John 1:45 does not help Shamoun one iota:
John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
In fact Shamoun seems to hesitate in quoting the passage fully as the passage seems to be opposing the Christian doctrine of Jesus divinity and the miraculous birth as Jesus is described as “the son of Joseph” (not the son of God), hence it is unsurprising to me to hear a perceived shift in the intonation of Shamoun’s voice when he came to this part of the verse. Surely this passage opens up a new can of worms for Shamoun and his colleagues.
To address Shamoun thoroughly and to do his points justice I would state that Moses and other Prophets writing about Jesus in the Law (Torah) does not mean the Christ is “the Prophet”. This was a confusing argument which Shamoun presented and the more discerning amongst the audience would have felt the same in my view. Also, as a worrying point of contention for Shamoun and other Christian apologists; Philip seems to be claiming that Moses wrote about Jesus “the son of Joseph”, thus Philip is not only denying the miraculous birth of Jesus but is intimating that Moses wrote about somebody (a Prophet to come) who was to have a natural birth, this could not have been Jesus so the question remains, who is this person? This passage, ironically cited by Shamoun to support his views, does not aid Shamoun at all but further compounds the confusion and leads to a multitude of important questions.
Shamoun and John 5:39-40
Shamoun fluently moves onto John 5: 39-40 and tries to build his argument upon this passage. This passage does not shed any further light on the matter, the readers can judge for themselves:
5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Thus we realise this passage (John 5:39-40) does not support Shamoun’s assertion that “the Prophet” and the Christ are the same person. Shamoun, after much positing of irrelevant or impotent “evidences”, moves onto his main Biblical citation which he believes supports his views that “the Prophet” is the Christ.
Shamoun brings forth the Biblical reference of John 6:14-15:
6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."
6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
Shamoun does not prove anything
Again, this reference does not prove Shamoun’s belief that “the Prophet” and the Christ was the same person. All this reference teaches us is that a group of people saw Jesus performing a “miraculous sign” and then they believed him to be “the Prophet”. There is no mention of the people calling him the Christ as well in this passage and nor is there any mention of the people exclaiming the two are the same person. Suffice it to say Shamoun interpolates his own understanding and imposes it upon the people of this passage without any authority or logical reasoning whatsoever. Even if we go with the view that Jesus is “the Prophet” then the question of who was the Christ arises.
We of course now know that Jesus was the Christ so could not have been “the Prophet” as these two were two distinct people (as gleaned from John 1:19-21). So it is more reasonable to view these people as being mistaken when pronouncing Jesus to be “the Prophet” (other people were mistaken concerning the identity of Jesus in Matthew 16:13-14, which is discussed later) as this would erroneously mean that Jesus was not the Christ unless one adopts Shamoun’s position which requires interpolating an unsubstantiated belief (the belief that the Christ and “the Prophet” are the same person) into the text. That would mean that the Biblical text is prevented from speaking for itself and Shamoun would act as an intermediary between the Bible and the reader.
In fact the context of this passage is that Jesus feeds the five thousand through food multiplication (this is the “miraculous sign” which they observed) the people saw this and then concluded that Jesus was “the Prophet”. Now, we realise from this that the sign of food multiplication is linked to “the Prophet”. If we look at the life of Mohammed we realise he too performed similar miracles of multiplying both food and water and feeding a great number of people due to the miracles [1, 2]. So this strengthens the Muslim claim that “the Prophet” is Mohammad.
What about Jesus?
One, naturally, may ask “what about Jesus”? Well, the context concerning Jesus was that there was much discussion and confusion concerning his identity, even John the Baptist did not know who Jesus was and questioned him. Those who knew of Jesus did not even know who he was so it of no surprise that some people (John 6:14-15) viewed him to be “the Prophet” initially as if we cross reference this with Matthew 16: 13-14 we realise there were many conflicting ideas concerning the identity of Jesus, quite simply people did not know who he was:
Matthew 16:13-14:
13: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14: They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Using Shamoun’s method we would simply combine all these titles and proclaim Jesus to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah and other prophets all in one despite all these being separate entities just like “the Prophet” and the Christ are separate entities.
Rather than using an exaggerated form of Shamoun’s methodology we can simply use the Scripture and logic and realise Jesus was the Christ and therefore was not John, Elijah, Jeremiah or any other prophet. So going back to Shamoun’s point we now know that Jesus is the Christ therefore the people of John 6:14 who claim Jesus to be “the Prophet” are incorrect as the two are not the same person according to the Bible. So Shamoun has a dilemma; either accept the Bible and realise the Christ is not “the Prophet” or manipulate the Bible in order for it to suit his own purposes.
Not only does Matthew 16:13-14 highlight the uncertainty of who Jesus was but it also shows a good number of people did not believe Jesus to be God which is an issue for the Trinitarian Church but is not the focus of this article. Just to further highlight the lack of knowledge concerning who Jesus was we can look to no less than John the Baptist who does not know who Jesus really was (Matthew 11: 1-2):
11:1 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.
11:2 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
This passage further highlights the lack of knowledge concerning Jesus and the potential to misidentify Jesus. As a side note, it further militates against the Trinitarian form of Christianity as John the Baptist (a Prophet) does not recognise Jesus as God.
Shamoun should rethink his views
However, going back to Shamoun’s assertions; surely it would be more logical for Shamoun to free himself from the shackles of bias (and conflicting ideas) and accept either he does not have a full understanding of the text or accept that “the Prophet” is not Jesus but somebody else. If he accepts the issue requires further contemplation and research then that would be admirable as we are all human beings and have huge gaps in our knowledge and of course only God is the All-Knower.
Shamoun does not lose much ground, to his Muslim counterparts either, if he accepts what the Biblical text indicates namely; “the Prophet” was being expected by the Jews and was not Jesus (the Christ) but somebody else. I say Shamoun does not lose much ground to the Muslims in this discussion as Shamoun could quite easily counter and say there is no Biblical proof from this passage that it refers to the Prophet Muhammed and he could go further and say for all the average reader knows is that it could refer to Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or other figures believed to be prophets by their respective followers. The neutrals could point to the fact that the passage was contained within the Gospel of John which scholars view to be the most theologically evolved and thus the least reliable of the four Gospels and they too could argue that the passage is not proof of another Prophet to come yet alone Muhammed.
So Shamoun has room to manoeuvre if he is willing to free himself of his own bias and desire to manipulate the Scripture in order to realise this bias. Shamoun must always remember he is not an intermediary between his audience and the Bible as the audience are well capable of reading and deciding for themselves without the view of Shamoun, otherwise it stops becoming the Bible but becomes Shamoun’s handbook they are reading into.
Summary
Shamoun has no Biblical foundations for his view that “the Prophet” and the Christ is the same person.
John 1: 19-21 clearly indicates that the two people are separate thus rendering Shamoun into the realms of textual acrobatics and interpolations in order to oppose the ideas presented by John 1:19-21. We also realise that there was much confusion as to who Jesus actually was and a miracle of multiplying food and feeding a multitude of people is a key factor in identifying who “the Prophet” was highlighted in John 6:14-15.
We note biblical evidence (John 1:19-21) highlights that the Christ is not “the Prophet” and there is no Biblical evidence to show the two are the same despite Shamoun’s assertions.We also see Philip appearing not to believe in Jesus as God but as a human who was “the son of Joseph” (John 1:45), this passage re-opens the Unitarian arguments.
As a side note, many Muslims would state that Muhammed performed a miracle of feeding the multitude and this is a key identifying feature of “the Prophet”, thus their claims are in fact strengthened by this analysis.
The question still remains; who is “the Prophet”?
Of course the reader is left to go away and independently decide who “the Prophet. was It is not for myself, Shamoun or anybody else for that matter to decide for the reader we can merely put the facts out rather than opinion; that is what I have attempted to do in the course of this paper. I do feel Shamoun lent heavily on supposition and interpolating his own views into Biblical text but if anybody feels I have inadequately dealt with this subject or made a mistake then do contact me and let me know
Thank youSearch for the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.
Note: All Bible references were taken from the New International Version of the Bible
Appendix 1
Link to the Muslim argument suggesting Muhammed is referred to in the Gospel of John:http://www.institutealislam.com/muhammad-in-the-bible-by-dr-jamal-badawi/
And:http://www.institutealislam.com/prophet-muhammad-in-the-bible-by-dr.-zakir-naik/2.
Link to Shamoun’s claims which I responded to in the course of this article (video entitled: Muhammad in the Bible? John 1:19-21):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xHJ7JEQOXQ&feature=channel_page
References
[1] Volume 5, Book 59, Number 428
[2] Volume 4, Book 56, Number 777
This article came with an audio presentation too:
2. Shamoun responded via his appearance on ABN, my response was in the form of an audio presentation on YouTube:
3. My Final response is here, which simply responds to a short piece by shamoun where Shamoun brings very little new material to the discussion:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/final-analysis-on-john-119-21-with-sam.html
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
A Strange Being Preaches Christianity to a Muslim
Was it a jinn...Whatever it was, it lost the debate against the Muslim
Video is by Yahya Snow
Video is by Yahya Snow
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Final Analysis on John 1:19-21 with Sam Shamoun
The discussion with Sam Shamoun regarding John 1:19-21 has reached an impasse. The time has arrived for the readers to view the material on offer and draw their respective conclusions based on objectivity rather than partisan loyalties
Sam Shamoun offered a short written response in an attempt to respond further, however this written response brought little new material to the table. In the interest of thoroughness we have responded to his final comments in order to complete the debate. As Shamoun’s response contains very little new material as well as straw man arguments there is a touch of déjà vu about this article
Shamoun’s Helpers
It did surprise me somewhat that a discussion between Sam Shamoun and I has evolved into a dialogue which has seen David Wood and Semper Paratus (Anthony Rogers) come to offer material support to Sam Shamoun in this discussion.
This is extremely surprising as Shamoun did initially declare my response to him to be “pathetic” and dismissed it as laughable. If it was so feeble then why in the world did Shamoun’s colleagues feel they needed to add to Shamoun’s responses or even help him out? Obviously Mr Wood and Anthony (Rogers) either felt Shamoun was struggling or my response was a potent and difficult response to contend with.
As Shamoun was the original protagonist he gets first priority. In my last response to Shamoun I did make him aware of his convoluted and difficult to follow lines of argumentation. However it seems as though he did not take heed and he has only put his difficult to follow argumentation in writing which D.Wood has displayed on his blog. To Shamoun’s credit he did appear to be asking whether he could be understood by his fellow Christian, this Christian remains anonymous, perhaps this Christian thought my response was potent and made sense and thus went to Shamoun for his thoughts. If this is the case then I feel my work has been vindicated and indeed the object of inciting research and further thought has been achieved.
A Recap
Before addressing Shamoun’s latest efforts it will be wise to refresh ourselves with details coming out of previous dialogue concerning the topic in hand.
I did say from the outset that my response would be more analytical rather than partisan and thus it would be proved difficult to respond to by Shamoun. This certainly has been the case as Shamoun in all his responses has been somewhat difficult to follow and convoluted. I feel this should inspire Christians and Muslims to look into the bible for their selves and draw their own conclusions on this issue. That indeed was my purpose; to provoke thought and research.
My message has been a simple one, though it has been lost in the torrent of ridicule, incoherent arguments, convoluted spiel and insults from the Christian camp (a camp that includes supporters of Shamoun who directed their venom towards me).
I do feel it appropriate to bring my basic message to the fore again and allow my message or analytical argumentation to speak for itself. My message all along has been if we allow the passage (John 1:19-21) to speak for itself we realise that the Jewish elite (who included experts in the Torah) believed there were three SEPARATE individuals to come, namely Elijah, Christ and “the Prophet”. Nowhere in the Gospel of John we find any statement negating the view of the Jewish elite; no quote from John the Baptist, Jesus or even the narrator of the Gospel – this is quite telling and damaging for Shamoun’s views
Shamoun and his helpers tried to present the Christ and “the Prophet” to be the same person. This is not in the Biblical text at all and thus becomes an unauthorised addition on their part. Having, already condemned Shamoun for turning the Bible into the handbook of Sam Shamoun (due to his own interpolations into the text) he and his supporters persist with their claims that “the Prophet” is the Christ.
In my previous article it was stated:
So we realise the Jewish elite question John the Baptist, he tells them that he is not the Christ and they proceed to ask him whether he was Elijah or “the Prophet”. What we glean from this text is that the Christ, Elijah and the Prophet are three separate people and thus the Jews who were questioning John the Baptist were expecting the arrival of three distinct figures in the future; Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet. The Muslim suggests that the Prophet is Muhammed and not the Christ (Jesus), this is a reasonable suggestion in so far as “the Prophet” is distinct and independent from the Christ.
It should also be noted that John the Baptist did not question the Jews concerning “the Prophet” and nor did he seem perplexed once questioned about “the Prophet” which suggests he (John the Baptist), like the Jews, was aware of a Prophet to come who is not Jesus (the Christ). As a note to the lay reader, Christ simple means Messiah (literally the anointed one) in Greek and does not mean God or the son of God.
Well, quite apparently Shamoun and his colleagues are mistaken as this verse clearly indicates that there are three separate individuals, why they cannot accept this is beyond me. However this is old hat, we have already covered this in my previous article; I did illustrate how inconsistent Shamoun’s methodology of exegesis was, he seemed bent on manipulating the Bible rather than allowing the passage to speak for itself. Of course if we allow it to speak for itself we realise that “the Prophet” is distinct from the Christ and this leads to the question; who is “the Prophet”?
Lacking Clarity
Shamoun’s lack of clarity continued even in his latest written response, which was unfortunate, nevertheless it should still be discussed. To his credit he acknowledges his lack of coherency by asking “Let me know if it now makes sense”.
Well, to be honest Sam, it still does not make sense. It really does not! Suffice to say I will still try my best to comb through it and offer some cogent analysis.
Shamoun’s New Points Are Discussed
Firstly, before even attempting to explain John 1:19-21 Shamoun drifts onto a new tangent in trying to get people to believe John the Baptist thought his mission was to prepare the way for God.
He goes to John1:23 and points out John the Baptist was quoting from Isaiah, yes Shamoun is correct here, any comprehensive NIV Bible will state this in the footnotes. Shamoun offers nothing new, it is clearly stated John the Baptist quoted from Isaiah 40:3. He did not quote anything else.
Unfortunately Shamoun begins to misrepresent this and manipulate the Bible by going off to other parts of Isaiah and making his own unauthorised conclusions and cross-references. Shamoun has been condemned by me previously for interpolating his own ideas into the Bible and turning it into the handbook of Sam Shamoun. I condemn him once again and admonish him again in the hope he will desist from disrespecting the Bible in such a manner.
Just to illustrate Shamoun’s guilt he begins to quote Isaiah 3-5 and 9-11 (very selective indeed) even though the Baptist only quoted Isaiah 40:3. Shamoun is caught red-handed here. In fact Isaiah as a text is very vague and ambiguous due to its nature, one can see why people with Shamoun’s agenda/propensity to manipulate text favour quoting from it as it has much scope for manipulation.
Shamoun, after totally ignoring the Baptist’s small quotation from Isaiah, Shamoun selectively quotes different verses from Isaiah and bizarrely jumps to this conclusion:
According to Isaiah the voice, or herald, was to prepare for the coming of God, the appearance of the glory of Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh was going to appear visibly for all to see after the voice prepared the people for his coming. Since the Baptist explicitly says that he is that voice this means that Jesus is Yahweh God since John himself says that he came to prepare his way
This is real textual acrobatics, quite simply Shamoun’s own spin on things. As a matter of fact Shamoun’s statements are refuted by the Bible. I say this as the Bible does teach God is not a man (Numbers 23:19), so Shamoun is in a pickle if he wishes to cling to these new ideas he presented. I guess this is amongst the reasons why he appears to be convoluted and incoherent.
Shamoun is entitled to his belief, I am not ridiculing him for having his belief but merely admonishing him for trying to present his belief as a representation of the Bible though it is quite clearly misrepresenting the Bible due to the addition of Shamoun’s chosen words and conclusions into the text. Shamoun’s words can be read in their entirety and if the reader has enough time and energy he/she can try to comprehend them and view whether I am being fair to Shamoun or not.
About John the Baptist
Shamoun then quotes John 1:25-27, 29-34 and comes to a bold conclusion which is again somewhat confusing and convoluted, he concludes:
It now makes sense why the Baptist could say that Jesus existed before him since Jesus is the God of the OT who was coming to reveal himself to his people and therefore existed long before the Baptist was born.
I recognise Shamoun is desperate to prove to us that the Baptist believed Jesus to be God but using this form of textual acrobatics is simply disrespectful to the Bible. Surely if the Baptist really believed God was coming to Earth after him then he would have said it clearly. Quite simply the Baptist did not say this; thus Shamoun’s conclusion is not based on anything firm at all but mere conjecture. Shamoun has no theological reason to bring John the Baptist into the equation and certainly has no theological compulsion to attribute this conclusion to the Baptist’s thoughts.
In any case to pour further cold water on Shamoun’s claims we realise through the Bible that God is not a man and thus there was no way the Baptist believed Jesus was God as Jesus was a man. In fact he was baptised by John the Baptist; thus there is no way at all that the Baptist was going to believe Jesus was God. Can you really imagine the Baptist going home and telling his family he just baptised God? Of course not, so Sam please do not attribute your unorthodox ideas onto the Baptist. Let us have some decorum for John the Baptist by not misrepresenting him. I am sure that is not too much to ask.
The Gospel of John is the Least Reliable Gospel
Shamoun also brings into play the famous words of the Gospel of John 1:1. This of course is from the author of the first passage of the Gospel of John (whomever this maybe) and not from Jesus or John the Baptist. So it is unfair, incorrect and unscholarly of Shamoun to say:
Thus, according to both Johns Jesus is the human appearance, the visible manifestation, of the OT God of Israel.
As we have already stated the Gospel of John was the last to be written (out of the four accepted Gospels) and is believed to be the most theologically developed Gospel therefore it is the least reliable and very difficult to use to affirm your argumentation based on it as it is unreliable, especially so when put next to the Gospel of Mark. This does not mean Shamoun does not have the free will to believe in it nor does it mean that we should dismiss it. It merely means that Shamoun is quoting the opinion of the author of the first verse of the Gospel of John (whoever this unknown author was). As simple as that! Whoever authored the first verse/passage of the Gospel of John may have believed Jesus was more than a Prophet though the passage does somewhat contradict the idea of the Trinity but that is another matter.
So Shamoun should be careful when trying to impose these beliefs/views upon John the Baptist or even Jesus for that matter as there is no evidence for his claims.
Shamoun Lacks Comprehension
Having given this advice to Shamoun we can move on to address Shamoun’s lack of comprehension skills. He clearly did not comprehend my point (despite it being in audio as well as in writing). Shamoun stated:
Yahya tried to argue that the statements of these Jews who questioned the Baptist actually disprove my beliefs. He bases this on the fact that these Jews must have believed that the Christ would be born to human parents since they asked the Baptist whether he was the Christ
Well, Shamoun needs to go back and re-listen to what I said and re-read the material as it is clear that I was not claiming this. I said using Shamoun’s logic (Shamoun used faulty logic to conclude the inquiring Jews must have believed “the Prophet” was an Israelite, this was not in the text so in order to illustrate his poor method of exegesis I used HIS method of exegesis for the rest of the verse and it showed us that these Jews thought the Christ was born of a natural birth. This was to highlight to Shamoun his faulty reasoning, this was not my reasoning but merely an extension of Shamoun’s fanciful and inconsistent methods of interpreting text in order to bring the fallacious and inconsistent nature of his method of reasoning to light.Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument!
Here is what was written previously (Shamoun should have taken the time to understand it before jumping to such a conclusion):
This is a peculiar understanding which Shamoun states rather forcefully, however it is not only a peculiar understanding which lacks proof from the passage in question but it is an inconsistent view as Shamoun fails to use the same “peculiar” method of exegesis concerning the passage when it mentions the Christ.
Shamoun’s lack of consistency is highlighted by John 1:20 where if he was to use the same far-fetched reasoning and assumption without any authority he should also conclude that John the Baptist believes that the inquiring Jews believed that the Christ was to have a natural birth as John the Baptist tells them that “I am not the Christ”. The inquiring Jews would have known that John the Baptist was not born of a virgin birth but that of a normal birth; therefore Shamoun (being consistent) would conclude the Jews believed Christ to be a man born of a husband and wife. Why Shamoun lacked the consistency to judge the whole passage by his own erroneous yardstick is a mystery. Shamoun simply interpolates his own unfounded assumption into the text; the text does not teach us that “the Prophet” is an Israelite; in fact it does not teach us anything about the lineage of “the Prophet” despite Shamoun’s inconsistent assertion.
Shamoun needs to stop misrepresenting me otherwise he is arguing a straw man. Sadly Shamoun builds on this straw man and builds his further arguments on this, needless to say they can be dismissed as they are built on a straw man and not on my arguments. Note I do not believe Shamoun did this deliberately I genuinely believe through his lack of time and the pressure upon him he misread (or did not read fully) what I was saying.
"Silly and Desperate"
After Shamoun completes his straw man arguments based on his misrepresentation of what I said he asks:
In light of this do you see just how silly and desperate Yahya’s counter-points truly are?
Yes, Mr Shamoun, the points would be silly if I actually made those points but due to your errors you misrepresented me, please go back and spend time understanding the arguments I made before attacking otherwise you will be the one who looks “silly” again. Shamoun, essentially wastes our time by misunderstanding what I have to say.
He goes full circle and goes back to the Jewish interlocutors (the inquiring Jews) and suggests they were wrong. He fails to offer a statement from John the Baptist to say they were wrong, he fails to offer any comment from the author (s) of the Gospel of John correcting them. Therefore Shamoun seems isolated when he suggests that these Jews were wrong to expect another Prophet to come who will not be the Christ but will be “the Prophet”. It is simply Shamoun’s unproven opinion against the opinion of the learned Jewish elite. Considering the Baptist did not correct the Jews concerning this view it points to the fact that the Baptist agreed with these Jews; thus Shamoun’s position appears even weaker
Shamoun Does Not Lose Ground
As stated previously:
Shamoun does not lose much ground, to his Muslim counterparts either, if he accepts what the Biblical text indicates namely; “the Prophet” was being expected by the Jews and was not Jesus (the Christ) but somebody else. I say Shamoun does not lose much ground to the Muslims in this discussion as Shamoun could quite easily counter and say there is no Biblical proof from this passage that it refers to the Prophet Muhammed and he could go further and say for all the average reader knows is that it could refer to Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or other figures believed to be prophets by their respective followers. The neutrals could point to the fact that the passage was contained within the Gospel of John which scholars view to be the most theologically evolved and thus the least reliable of the four Gospels and they too could argue that the passage is not proof of another Prophet to come yet alone Muhammed.
So Shamoun has room to manoeuvre if he is willing to free himself of his own bias and desire to manipulate the Scripture in order to realise this bias. Shamoun must always remember he is not an intermediary between his audience and the Bible as the audience are well capable of reading and deciding for themselves without the view of Shamoun, otherwise it stops becoming the Bible but becomes Shamoun’s handbook they are reading into.
I do ask Shamoun’s Christian audience (as well as any non-Christians amongst his audience) to maintain intellectual honesty and also re-evaluate his views based on my points of contention. It does seem as though Shamoun’s audience are doing this as proven by the confused Christian who was questioning Shamoun. Progress!
Related Links:
Previous article addressing S.Shamoun:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Response%20to%20Sam%20Shamoun%3A%20Does%20John%201%3A19-21%20mention%20Muhammad%3F
YouTube video responses on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdlJJfyJ1gk
2nd video respnose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPOSiRqj1yk&feature=response_watch
Sam Shamoun offered a short written response in an attempt to respond further, however this written response brought little new material to the table. In the interest of thoroughness we have responded to his final comments in order to complete the debate. As Shamoun’s response contains very little new material as well as straw man arguments there is a touch of déjà vu about this article
Shamoun’s Helpers
It did surprise me somewhat that a discussion between Sam Shamoun and I has evolved into a dialogue which has seen David Wood and Semper Paratus (Anthony Rogers) come to offer material support to Sam Shamoun in this discussion.
This is extremely surprising as Shamoun did initially declare my response to him to be “pathetic” and dismissed it as laughable. If it was so feeble then why in the world did Shamoun’s colleagues feel they needed to add to Shamoun’s responses or even help him out? Obviously Mr Wood and Anthony (Rogers) either felt Shamoun was struggling or my response was a potent and difficult response to contend with.
As Shamoun was the original protagonist he gets first priority. In my last response to Shamoun I did make him aware of his convoluted and difficult to follow lines of argumentation. However it seems as though he did not take heed and he has only put his difficult to follow argumentation in writing which D.Wood has displayed on his blog. To Shamoun’s credit he did appear to be asking whether he could be understood by his fellow Christian, this Christian remains anonymous, perhaps this Christian thought my response was potent and made sense and thus went to Shamoun for his thoughts. If this is the case then I feel my work has been vindicated and indeed the object of inciting research and further thought has been achieved.
A Recap
Before addressing Shamoun’s latest efforts it will be wise to refresh ourselves with details coming out of previous dialogue concerning the topic in hand.
I did say from the outset that my response would be more analytical rather than partisan and thus it would be proved difficult to respond to by Shamoun. This certainly has been the case as Shamoun in all his responses has been somewhat difficult to follow and convoluted. I feel this should inspire Christians and Muslims to look into the bible for their selves and draw their own conclusions on this issue. That indeed was my purpose; to provoke thought and research.
My message has been a simple one, though it has been lost in the torrent of ridicule, incoherent arguments, convoluted spiel and insults from the Christian camp (a camp that includes supporters of Shamoun who directed their venom towards me).
I do feel it appropriate to bring my basic message to the fore again and allow my message or analytical argumentation to speak for itself. My message all along has been if we allow the passage (John 1:19-21) to speak for itself we realise that the Jewish elite (who included experts in the Torah) believed there were three SEPARATE individuals to come, namely Elijah, Christ and “the Prophet”. Nowhere in the Gospel of John we find any statement negating the view of the Jewish elite; no quote from John the Baptist, Jesus or even the narrator of the Gospel – this is quite telling and damaging for Shamoun’s views
Shamoun and his helpers tried to present the Christ and “the Prophet” to be the same person. This is not in the Biblical text at all and thus becomes an unauthorised addition on their part. Having, already condemned Shamoun for turning the Bible into the handbook of Sam Shamoun (due to his own interpolations into the text) he and his supporters persist with their claims that “the Prophet” is the Christ.
In my previous article it was stated:
So we realise the Jewish elite question John the Baptist, he tells them that he is not the Christ and they proceed to ask him whether he was Elijah or “the Prophet”. What we glean from this text is that the Christ, Elijah and the Prophet are three separate people and thus the Jews who were questioning John the Baptist were expecting the arrival of three distinct figures in the future; Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet. The Muslim suggests that the Prophet is Muhammed and not the Christ (Jesus), this is a reasonable suggestion in so far as “the Prophet” is distinct and independent from the Christ.
It should also be noted that John the Baptist did not question the Jews concerning “the Prophet” and nor did he seem perplexed once questioned about “the Prophet” which suggests he (John the Baptist), like the Jews, was aware of a Prophet to come who is not Jesus (the Christ). As a note to the lay reader, Christ simple means Messiah (literally the anointed one) in Greek and does not mean God or the son of God.
Well, quite apparently Shamoun and his colleagues are mistaken as this verse clearly indicates that there are three separate individuals, why they cannot accept this is beyond me. However this is old hat, we have already covered this in my previous article; I did illustrate how inconsistent Shamoun’s methodology of exegesis was, he seemed bent on manipulating the Bible rather than allowing the passage to speak for itself. Of course if we allow it to speak for itself we realise that “the Prophet” is distinct from the Christ and this leads to the question; who is “the Prophet”?
Lacking Clarity
Shamoun’s lack of clarity continued even in his latest written response, which was unfortunate, nevertheless it should still be discussed. To his credit he acknowledges his lack of coherency by asking “Let me know if it now makes sense”.
Well, to be honest Sam, it still does not make sense. It really does not! Suffice to say I will still try my best to comb through it and offer some cogent analysis.
Shamoun’s New Points Are Discussed
Firstly, before even attempting to explain John 1:19-21 Shamoun drifts onto a new tangent in trying to get people to believe John the Baptist thought his mission was to prepare the way for God.
He goes to John1:23 and points out John the Baptist was quoting from Isaiah, yes Shamoun is correct here, any comprehensive NIV Bible will state this in the footnotes. Shamoun offers nothing new, it is clearly stated John the Baptist quoted from Isaiah 40:3. He did not quote anything else.
Unfortunately Shamoun begins to misrepresent this and manipulate the Bible by going off to other parts of Isaiah and making his own unauthorised conclusions and cross-references. Shamoun has been condemned by me previously for interpolating his own ideas into the Bible and turning it into the handbook of Sam Shamoun. I condemn him once again and admonish him again in the hope he will desist from disrespecting the Bible in such a manner.
Just to illustrate Shamoun’s guilt he begins to quote Isaiah 3-5 and 9-11 (very selective indeed) even though the Baptist only quoted Isaiah 40:3. Shamoun is caught red-handed here. In fact Isaiah as a text is very vague and ambiguous due to its nature, one can see why people with Shamoun’s agenda/propensity to manipulate text favour quoting from it as it has much scope for manipulation.
Shamoun, after totally ignoring the Baptist’s small quotation from Isaiah, Shamoun selectively quotes different verses from Isaiah and bizarrely jumps to this conclusion:
According to Isaiah the voice, or herald, was to prepare for the coming of God, the appearance of the glory of Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh was going to appear visibly for all to see after the voice prepared the people for his coming. Since the Baptist explicitly says that he is that voice this means that Jesus is Yahweh God since John himself says that he came to prepare his way
This is real textual acrobatics, quite simply Shamoun’s own spin on things. As a matter of fact Shamoun’s statements are refuted by the Bible. I say this as the Bible does teach God is not a man (Numbers 23:19), so Shamoun is in a pickle if he wishes to cling to these new ideas he presented. I guess this is amongst the reasons why he appears to be convoluted and incoherent.
Shamoun is entitled to his belief, I am not ridiculing him for having his belief but merely admonishing him for trying to present his belief as a representation of the Bible though it is quite clearly misrepresenting the Bible due to the addition of Shamoun’s chosen words and conclusions into the text. Shamoun’s words can be read in their entirety and if the reader has enough time and energy he/she can try to comprehend them and view whether I am being fair to Shamoun or not.
About John the Baptist
Shamoun then quotes John 1:25-27, 29-34 and comes to a bold conclusion which is again somewhat confusing and convoluted, he concludes:
It now makes sense why the Baptist could say that Jesus existed before him since Jesus is the God of the OT who was coming to reveal himself to his people and therefore existed long before the Baptist was born.
I recognise Shamoun is desperate to prove to us that the Baptist believed Jesus to be God but using this form of textual acrobatics is simply disrespectful to the Bible. Surely if the Baptist really believed God was coming to Earth after him then he would have said it clearly. Quite simply the Baptist did not say this; thus Shamoun’s conclusion is not based on anything firm at all but mere conjecture. Shamoun has no theological reason to bring John the Baptist into the equation and certainly has no theological compulsion to attribute this conclusion to the Baptist’s thoughts.
In any case to pour further cold water on Shamoun’s claims we realise through the Bible that God is not a man and thus there was no way the Baptist believed Jesus was God as Jesus was a man. In fact he was baptised by John the Baptist; thus there is no way at all that the Baptist was going to believe Jesus was God. Can you really imagine the Baptist going home and telling his family he just baptised God? Of course not, so Sam please do not attribute your unorthodox ideas onto the Baptist. Let us have some decorum for John the Baptist by not misrepresenting him. I am sure that is not too much to ask.
The Gospel of John is the Least Reliable Gospel
Shamoun also brings into play the famous words of the Gospel of John 1:1. This of course is from the author of the first passage of the Gospel of John (whomever this maybe) and not from Jesus or John the Baptist. So it is unfair, incorrect and unscholarly of Shamoun to say:
Thus, according to both Johns Jesus is the human appearance, the visible manifestation, of the OT God of Israel.
As we have already stated the Gospel of John was the last to be written (out of the four accepted Gospels) and is believed to be the most theologically developed Gospel therefore it is the least reliable and very difficult to use to affirm your argumentation based on it as it is unreliable, especially so when put next to the Gospel of Mark. This does not mean Shamoun does not have the free will to believe in it nor does it mean that we should dismiss it. It merely means that Shamoun is quoting the opinion of the author of the first verse of the Gospel of John (whoever this unknown author was). As simple as that! Whoever authored the first verse/passage of the Gospel of John may have believed Jesus was more than a Prophet though the passage does somewhat contradict the idea of the Trinity but that is another matter.
So Shamoun should be careful when trying to impose these beliefs/views upon John the Baptist or even Jesus for that matter as there is no evidence for his claims.
Shamoun Lacks Comprehension
Having given this advice to Shamoun we can move on to address Shamoun’s lack of comprehension skills. He clearly did not comprehend my point (despite it being in audio as well as in writing). Shamoun stated:
Yahya tried to argue that the statements of these Jews who questioned the Baptist actually disprove my beliefs. He bases this on the fact that these Jews must have believed that the Christ would be born to human parents since they asked the Baptist whether he was the Christ
Well, Shamoun needs to go back and re-listen to what I said and re-read the material as it is clear that I was not claiming this. I said using Shamoun’s logic (Shamoun used faulty logic to conclude the inquiring Jews must have believed “the Prophet” was an Israelite, this was not in the text so in order to illustrate his poor method of exegesis I used HIS method of exegesis for the rest of the verse and it showed us that these Jews thought the Christ was born of a natural birth. This was to highlight to Shamoun his faulty reasoning, this was not my reasoning but merely an extension of Shamoun’s fanciful and inconsistent methods of interpreting text in order to bring the fallacious and inconsistent nature of his method of reasoning to light.Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument!
Here is what was written previously (Shamoun should have taken the time to understand it before jumping to such a conclusion):
This is a peculiar understanding which Shamoun states rather forcefully, however it is not only a peculiar understanding which lacks proof from the passage in question but it is an inconsistent view as Shamoun fails to use the same “peculiar” method of exegesis concerning the passage when it mentions the Christ.
Shamoun’s lack of consistency is highlighted by John 1:20 where if he was to use the same far-fetched reasoning and assumption without any authority he should also conclude that John the Baptist believes that the inquiring Jews believed that the Christ was to have a natural birth as John the Baptist tells them that “I am not the Christ”. The inquiring Jews would have known that John the Baptist was not born of a virgin birth but that of a normal birth; therefore Shamoun (being consistent) would conclude the Jews believed Christ to be a man born of a husband and wife. Why Shamoun lacked the consistency to judge the whole passage by his own erroneous yardstick is a mystery. Shamoun simply interpolates his own unfounded assumption into the text; the text does not teach us that “the Prophet” is an Israelite; in fact it does not teach us anything about the lineage of “the Prophet” despite Shamoun’s inconsistent assertion.
Shamoun needs to stop misrepresenting me otherwise he is arguing a straw man. Sadly Shamoun builds on this straw man and builds his further arguments on this, needless to say they can be dismissed as they are built on a straw man and not on my arguments. Note I do not believe Shamoun did this deliberately I genuinely believe through his lack of time and the pressure upon him he misread (or did not read fully) what I was saying.
"Silly and Desperate"
After Shamoun completes his straw man arguments based on his misrepresentation of what I said he asks:
In light of this do you see just how silly and desperate Yahya’s counter-points truly are?
Yes, Mr Shamoun, the points would be silly if I actually made those points but due to your errors you misrepresented me, please go back and spend time understanding the arguments I made before attacking otherwise you will be the one who looks “silly” again. Shamoun, essentially wastes our time by misunderstanding what I have to say.
He goes full circle and goes back to the Jewish interlocutors (the inquiring Jews) and suggests they were wrong. He fails to offer a statement from John the Baptist to say they were wrong, he fails to offer any comment from the author (s) of the Gospel of John correcting them. Therefore Shamoun seems isolated when he suggests that these Jews were wrong to expect another Prophet to come who will not be the Christ but will be “the Prophet”. It is simply Shamoun’s unproven opinion against the opinion of the learned Jewish elite. Considering the Baptist did not correct the Jews concerning this view it points to the fact that the Baptist agreed with these Jews; thus Shamoun’s position appears even weaker
Shamoun Does Not Lose Ground
As stated previously:
Shamoun does not lose much ground, to his Muslim counterparts either, if he accepts what the Biblical text indicates namely; “the Prophet” was being expected by the Jews and was not Jesus (the Christ) but somebody else. I say Shamoun does not lose much ground to the Muslims in this discussion as Shamoun could quite easily counter and say there is no Biblical proof from this passage that it refers to the Prophet Muhammed and he could go further and say for all the average reader knows is that it could refer to Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or other figures believed to be prophets by their respective followers. The neutrals could point to the fact that the passage was contained within the Gospel of John which scholars view to be the most theologically evolved and thus the least reliable of the four Gospels and they too could argue that the passage is not proof of another Prophet to come yet alone Muhammed.
So Shamoun has room to manoeuvre if he is willing to free himself of his own bias and desire to manipulate the Scripture in order to realise this bias. Shamoun must always remember he is not an intermediary between his audience and the Bible as the audience are well capable of reading and deciding for themselves without the view of Shamoun, otherwise it stops becoming the Bible but becomes Shamoun’s handbook they are reading into.
I do ask Shamoun’s Christian audience (as well as any non-Christians amongst his audience) to maintain intellectual honesty and also re-evaluate his views based on my points of contention. It does seem as though Shamoun’s audience are doing this as proven by the confused Christian who was questioning Shamoun. Progress!
Related Links:
Previous article addressing S.Shamoun:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Response%20to%20Sam%20Shamoun%3A%20Does%20John%201%3A19-21%20mention%20Muhammad%3F
YouTube video responses on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdlJJfyJ1gk
2nd video respnose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPOSiRqj1yk&feature=response_watch
Friday, 12 February 2010
Have You Ever Heard The Quran Recitied?
I have heard and read parts of the Quran in dreams andIam fascinated and overwhelmed by the spiritual depth of this Book. I have given individuals who may never have heard the Quran an opportunity to hear it. I intend to make this a regular theme (Insha'Allah). Please do listen, enjoy and benefit from the healing within.
The Comment Section...
It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(
So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(
So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Christian Apologist Calls Islam Demonic: Yahya Snow Responds
It was an unwise comment from Hogan Elijah Hagbard (Christian apologist) which brought about such a response. The response is thoughtful and respectful; it also offers the Christians food for thought.
Article showing Islam not to be Satanic:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/08/quran-is-not-from-satan.html
Please view the links on offer, thanks:Links to Yusuf Estes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NB0n5...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkuZ1u...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJzuJ5...
Website of Yusuf Estes:http://shareislam.com/
Links to Dr Jerald Dirks:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZSrP...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4KW-...
Joshua Evans:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW99U4...
Article showing Islam not to be Satanic:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/08/quran-is-not-from-satan.html
Please view the links on offer, thanks:Links to Yusuf Estes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NB0n5...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkuZ1u...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJzuJ5...
Website of Yusuf Estes:http://shareislam.com/
Links to Dr Jerald Dirks:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZSrP...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4KW-...
Joshua Evans:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW99U4...