Towards Jesus

How misused: Muslim interlocutors repeatedly misinterpret Jesus' statement, 'I can do nothing on my own,' to argue against His divinity or to imply a subordination of essence. This takes the verse out of its immediate context where Jesus asserts His unity and equality with the Father, and ignores the Jewish leaders' understanding of His claims as blasphemous (John 5:18).

Scripture's answer: Jesus' statement 'I can do nothing on my own' (John 5:30) emphasizes His perfect unity of will and action with the Father, not a lack of power or divinity. The preceding verses clearly show Jesus claiming divine prerogatives: giving life, judging, and expecting honor equal to the Father (John 5:21-23). The Jewish leaders understood His claims as making Himself equal with God (John 5:18), a claim Jesus did not correct as a misunderstanding. The Greek 'ego dynamai poiein ap' emautou ouden' (I am able to do nothing from myself) points to a source of authority and unity, not an inherent weakness. This is consistent with Trinitarian theology which posits distinct persons sharing one divine essence and will.

How misused: Muslim interlocutors frequently cite Jesus' statement, 'But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father' (Mark 13:32), to argue against Jesus' omniscience and, by extension, His divinity. They take this as a categorical denial of divine knowledge.

Scripture's answer: This verse must be understood in the context of the Incarnation and the kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ. As the God-man, Jesus voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of some divine attributes, including omniscience, during His earthly ministry, without ceasing to be fully God. His statement reflects His true humanity and His perfect submission to the Father's will and plan (Philippians 2:6-8). The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as divine and omniscient in other contexts (e.g., John 2:25, 16:30, 21:17). The Father-Son relationship also involves an 'economic' (functional) subordination distinct from an ontological (essential) subordination (John 14:28). This does not negate His inherent divinity.

How misused: Opponents (Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses) misinterpret Jesus' statement 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) to mean only a unity of purpose or essence, not personal unity, particularly focusing on the neuter Greek 'hen' ('one') to deny distinct personhood. The speaker then misrepresents this to imply Jesus is not divine.

Scripture's answer: While 'hen' is neuter, it signifies a unity of being or essence, not merely a unity of purpose, especially in the context of Jesus's claims in John. The Jewish reaction to this statement was to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, because they understood Him to be making Himself God (John 10:33). This is a strong indicator that Jesus's contemporaries understood Him to be claiming deity. Furthermore, throughout John's Gospel, Jesus asserts divine attributes and functions (e.g., giving eternal life, judging, being equal with God, existing before Abraham) that point to His co-equality and co-eternality with the Father (John 1:1, 8:58, 14:9).

How misused: Muslim apologists frequently claim this verse, which speaks of a prophet 'like Moses,' refers to Muhammad. They argue Muhammad fits the criteria better than Jesus or is the prophetic fulfillment.

Scripture's answer: Deuteronomy 18:18 states, 'I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.' This prophecy refers to Jesus Christ. He is 'like Moses' in many ways (e.g., a lawgiver, intercessor, deliverer, performs signs) and is 'from among their brothers' (an Israelite). Muhammad was an Ishmaelite, not an Israelite. More importantly, Peter explicitly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy in Acts 3:22, and the New Testament testifies to Jesus knowing God face-to-face (John 1:18, 14:9) and performing signs and wonders (Acts 2:22), fulfilling all the conditions for a prophet 'like Moses' in a way Muhammad does not.

How misused: Muslim apologists (like Zakir Naik) misinterpret the 'Helper' or 'Comforter' (Paraclete) promised by Jesus to be Muhammad, asserting a linguistic or thematic connection to his prophetic role.

Scripture's answer: Jesus explicitly identifies the 'Helper' (Paraclete, Gk: Paraklētos) as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-14). The Spirit is described as one who 'dwells with you and will be in you' (John 14:17), which applies to the Holy Spirit's indwelling in believers, not a physical human prophet. The Spirit's role is to 'teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you' (John 14:26), and to 'glorify me' (John 16:14), which is fundamentally different from Muhammad's message that denies Jesus's divinity and atonement. Muhammad, as a human, cannot fulfill the spiritual, indwelling, and glorifying role of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Muhammad was not 'with' the disciples at the time Jesus spoke this.

How misused: Muslim apologists frequently cite this verse, 'How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie,' to claim that the Torah/Bible has been textually corrupted.

Scripture's answer: Jeremiah 8:8 is a prophetic critique against false prophets and dishonest scribes who *misinterpret or misapply* God's law, leading the people astray. It is a condemnation of those who twist the meaning of the Law, not a statement that the physical text of the Torah itself was corrupted or altered. The phrase 'lying pen of the scribes' refers to their deceptive interpretation and teaching of the Law, not textual emendation (Jeremiah 8:9-12). The integrity of the written Torah is consistently affirmed throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:1-176).

How misused: Trinitarian apologists frequently cite 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness' and 'in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them' to argue for a plurality of persons within the Godhead, attempting to retroactively fit Trinitarian doctrine into the Old Testament.

Scripture's answer: The plural pronouns 'Us' and 'Our' in Genesis 1:26 are best understood as a 'plural of majesty' (God speaking of Himself in a majestic manner) or as a divine deliberative council including heavenly beings (Job 1:6, 2:1, Psalm 8:5). Within its original Hebrew context, this passage unequivocally affirms monotheism (Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4) and does not inherently teach a plurality of persons within the divine essence. While Christians see Christ as the image of God (Colossians 1:15) and man created in that image, forcing a direct Trinitarian reading into this text is anachronistic eisegesis, not sound exegesis.

How misused: Sam Shamoun inaccurately claims Muhammad plagiarized Paul's words 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart of man conceived' to describe the glories of paradise in Islam, implying Islam is a derivative text.

Scripture's answer: 1 Corinthians 2:9 states, 'But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him'' (quoting Isaiah 64:4). This verse describes the spiritual blessings and profound truths God reveals through the Spirit, particularly concerning salvation and His plans, which are beyond human natural comprehension. It is a description of spiritual revelation and the depth of God's wisdom, not primarily a literal depiction of physical rewards in paradise. While Islamic traditions and the Quran describe paradise with various delights, to claim direct plagiarism or a misapplication of this specific verse to Islamic paradise as a 'theft' (as Shamoun does in 448) misunderstands the verse's original context and the nature of intertextual allusions within religious traditions.