110% Proof Jesus is not God

By: Ismaa'eel Abu Adam (aka. Converted2Islam)

Warning: If you're a Christian who is comfortable with your current beliefs and you don't want to change or worse still, if you're someone who is not interested in the truth than I suggest that you stop this video right now and leave because this video series is going to be engaging, thought provoking, serious and very damaging to the Christian doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus. owever, if you're someone who wants to know the truth about Jesus than I suggest you listen carefully, take notes and after each video research what I said and pray about it. Introduction !his video series is titled "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od(. In these videos I will share with you the result of my own personal research, thoughts and prayers on the alleged divinity of Jesus Christ. !he issue of whether he is 'od or not, for truly all that matters is that 'od be )*alted above all falsehood and that is !ruth be made known to humanity. . Dear Christians and +uslims watching this video, first let us say a short prayer asking 'od for is ,oving 'uidance before we begin this in depth analysis. -lso, .ust a /uick side note for the +uslims watching these videos, you will hear me talk about certain Christian concepts that might be new to you. 0or e*ample: Christians basically believe that Jesus e*isted as the 0ully 'lorified -ll &owerful 1nlimited 'od before he was born as a baby on earth, while living on earth as a human, or rather as the incarnated 'od2man 3being god and man at the same time4 Jesus was no longer the 0ully 'lorified 'od that he had previously been because he took upon himself human limitations in the incarnation 3when he became human4, then after Jesus allegedly died and was raised to life again, he once again went back to being the 1nlimited -ll &owerful 0ully 0unctional, 0ully 'lorified 'od as he was before he was born on earth. It sounds ridiculous and blasphemous yes, but I .ust want you to understand these three different stages or concepts of the life of Jesus that Christians talk about before I begin.

........................................................................................................................
,ets begin with video 5#:

Mark 13:32
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father 36ew International 7ersion4. !he same /uote can also be found in +atthew 89::;. !o comprehend what is going on here, we first need to understand the conte*t of this verse. !he disciples had asked Jesus when will the hour of Jesus' return be. Jesus replied that he did know the day or the hour 3in other words the time4 when this event will occur. +y contention is that this <ible verse

proves Jesus is not 'od because he lacked the knowledge of the time of his return but 'od knows all things. It's simple right, case closed, +ark #:::8 says Jesus can never be considered Divine and the Christians cannot deny this fact= 1nfortunately, as you will see Christians have cleverly devised a number of apologetic e*planations to deal with the problem of +ark #:::8. In this video I intend to refute them all. <ut first I will give you a /uote from a book called "- >ansom for +any( which is a commentary on the 'ospel of +ark, it says regarding +ark #:::8: However, there is a well-known difficulty in what Jesus says here indeed it could be said that ark !"#"$ is one of the %ost difficult verses in the Bible& Jesus is saying, 'he only (erson who knows when ) a% returning is the Father& 'he Son does not know& )n other words, Jesus hi%self doesn*t know& 3- >ansom for +any: the 'ospel of +ark ?imply )*plained 3@elwyn Commentary ?eries4A @ilmhurst, ?teveA B 8$## )& <ooks.4 6ow that you see that even the Christians recogniCe that +ark #:::8 presents Christianity with a serious theological dilemma, lets go through the main Christian e*planations and refute them all: 1 2 3 0 1 3 !"e #ords nor t"e son are not origina$ to t"e gos%e$ te&t. Jesus kne# t"e ti'e of "is return (ut "e )o$untari$* c"oose to $i'it t"e use of "is +i)ine ,ttri(ute of -'niscience .,$$ /no#$edge . Mark 13:32 is an issue of +i)ine ,ut"orit* not +i)ine /no#$edge. Jesus fu$$* kne# as God (ut did not kno# as 'an. It2s an issue of trans$ation: t"e #ords does not kno# in t"e Greek can 'ean does not 'ake kno#n or does not re)ea$. Mus$i's can2t 4uote Mark 13:32 (ecause it ca$$s Jesus t"e son of God5 a tit$e #"ic" t"e 6ur2an for(ids.

71 !"e #ords nor t"e son are not origina$ to t"e gos%e$ te&t.
Just a /uick reminder here, we are not only talking about +ark #:::8 but also +atthew 89::; because both verses say the same thing, they are parallel verses. In this case the Christians are denying the words "nor the son( in +atthew's 'ospels not in +ark's 'ospel. I have already /uoted +ark #:::8 but for sake of transparency here is the /uote from +atthew 89::; also, Jesus said: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father 36ew International 7ersion4. In an attempt to deal with this serious theological problem some troubled Christians have become very desperate and have gone so far as to deny that the words "nor the son( are original to the <ible te*t because they are said to be not found in the ma.ority of 'reek manuscripts of the 'ospel of +atthew. Dou can understand the desperation here, these words are a stumbling block for Christians because they fly in the face of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. M* refutation: I refute this desperate claim by informing them that the words: "nor the son( are indeed found in the original Code* ?inaiticus and Code* 7aticanus and many other <ible manuscripts. 0or those who don't know, the Code* ?inaiticus and Code* 7aticanus are the earliest, most complete copies of the 6ew !estament manuscripts that we have today. 6ot only that but the vast ma.ority of conservative Christian

<ible scholars believe these words were originally part of the te*t of +atthew's 'ospel. 0or e*ample, the footnote for +atthew 89::; in !he 6ew -merican <ible states: "+any te*tual witnesses omit nor the son, which follows +k #:::8. ?ince its omission can be e*plained by reluctance to attribute ignorance to the ?on, the reading that includes it is probably original(. )ven more certainly, the words "nor the son( are definitely found in +ark #:::8 and +ark's 'ospel predates +atthew's. !herefore, if you're a believing Christian, the word's "nor the son( should be accepted as original. In any case it really does not matter whether or not the words "nor the son( are original to the 'ospel of +atthew because the verse clearly states that "only the 0ather( knows the time of Jesus' second coming. !he words "only the 0ather( makes the meaning crystal clear that the son 3Jesus4 is e*cluded from possessing this knowledge. ?o the whole argument of the Christian who adopts this desperate attempt to dis/ualify the words "nor the son( is irrelevant and refuted.

........................................................................................................................
@elcome to video 58 in the series titled: "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od( discussing +ark #:::8. In continuation from video 5# we will now deal with....

72 Jesus kne# t"e ti'e of "is return (ut "e )o$untari$* c"oose to $i'it t"e use of "is +i)ine ,ttri(ute of -'niscience .,$$ /no#$edge .
M* refutation: 0irst, I state that knowing but at the same time not knowing is a "co2e*istence of contraries(, therefore the two cannot be alike. !he attribute of inability even if self imposed or voluntary is not one of 'odEs -ttributes. !here is no such thing as a willful or voluntary Divine inability. )ither youEre able or youEre not able. !he use of ability in a limited way or deficient way is an attribute of weakness and imperfection. !his cannot be applied to 'od because e is -lways &erfect in every way. !his takes us to the topic of the !rinity. !o me co2e/uality of the so called : Divine &ersons of the !rinity means that they are all e/ual in their essence and attributes and if any Divine individual among them has a limitation of a Divine -ttribute while the other one or two Divine individuals doesn't, this creates an imbalance and proves that one of them is either a lesserFlimited god compared to the others or one of them is no longer god anymore. &erhaps I should look into the pre2Christian trinity cults of 'reece and India for a greater understanding of co2e/uality among godheads because truly this Christian belief has pagan originsG Hf course this not easy for me because IEm thinking from a purely monotheistic -brahamic perspective and thatEs why IEm at odds with the concept of !rinity. !hese absurdities do not befit 'odEs &erfect +a.estic @ay. !he Christian claim that Jesus was fully 'od but incarnated and became a man, thus voluntarily restricting or limiting the use of certain divine attributes of his comes from the writings of &aul not Jesus. ?o we're dealing with &auline !heology here. &aul says about Jesus: +ho, though he was in the for% of ,od, did not regard e-uality with ,od

so%ething to be gras(ed& .ather, he e%(tied hi%self, taking the for% of a slave, co%ing in hu%an likeness/ and found hu%an in a((earance 3&hilippians 8:;2I, !he 6ew -merican <ible4.
Object 1

0irst of all I will say that this theology of &aul contradicts 'odEs own Divine -ttribute of Immutability 3meaning 'od does not change, 'od is the same at all times4. @e know 'od never changes from the Hld !estament. +alachi ::; says: ) the 01.2 do not change&&& 36ew International 7ersion4. Commentating on +alachi ::; the >eformation ?tudy <ible says that the words 3) & & & do not change&&3 refer to the immutability, or unchangeable character of 'od. In other words, if Jesus was fully 'od and he had -ll Divine &ower and had -ll Divine Jnowledge which has no limit or restriction, but then he decided to limit or restrict his Divine -ttribute of -ll Jnowledge than you have a change in 'od. Dou have a change in the Divine -ttributes of 'od. !hus the Christian is confronted by a huge contradiction from +alachi ::; which says this cannot happen, there can be no change in 'od, e is unchangeable, e is Immutable. 'od does not change in is Divine )ssence and likewise is -ttributes are all always the same. is -ttributes are always )ternal, always oly, always ,imitless, always &erfect, and thus always without defect, always without imperfection, always without inappropriateness, always without disgrace, always without any concept that would imply negativity which is not befitting to 'od's -ll &owerful or Hmniscient 'reat +a.esty. If Jesus had all the Divine Jnowledge of 'od but then he limited his &erfect ,imitless Divine Jnowledge than you not only have a logical contradiction of limiting the limitless but a contradiction in ?cripture between +ark #:::8 and +alachi ::;. !herefore this Christian e*planation is false and refuted. If Jesus is 'od, than +ark #:::8 is telling us that there was a change in an -ttribute of 'od 3the Divine -ttribute of -ll Jnowledge or Hmniscience4 and this cannot happen according to +alachi ::;. 'od's Divine -ttributes are not separated from is Divine ?elf or oly )ssence, and is )ssence does not change. 'od does not change and is 1nchanging )ssence is connected to and is inseparable from is &erfect -ttributes, therefore is -ttributes are also 1nchanging. )ven if Jesus voluntarily restricted only one of his alleged Divine -ttributes 3in this case his knowledge4 then still I say he is no longer 'od. 'odEs -ttributes are without limit and without restrictionA to say otherwise is to say 'od is not 'od, which makes no sense at all. Do you have any <iblical proof that 'odEs Divine -ttributes do indeed change= If 'od changed e violated is Hwn )ternal )ssence but Islam teaches that will never happenG Jesus did not say "he chose to limit his divine knowledge(, he simply said he "did not know( when his return will occur. @e have to be careful not to put words into his mouth or impose our interpretations on a clear <ible te*t. Dou and I need to accept JesusE unambiguous words here in +ark #:::8, if you did we would both have the same conclusion about him, that he is not 'od. .@here did Jesus say in his "own words( that he "chose( to limit his alleged Divine Jnowledge= Des 'odEs choice is unlimited, however is -ttribute of Hmniscience re/uires that e know all things at all times, it re/uires full unlimited perfect knowledge. <esides, 'od does not choose for imself attributes of absurdities or weaknesses that do not befit is Divine >oyal +a.esty. It is illogical and irrational and unreasonable to say that unlimited Hmniscience was limited. Christians believe that &aul was inspired to write the following words: For ,od is not the author of confusion but of (eace&&& 3# Corinthians #9:::, 6ew Jing James 7ersion4. Det the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus is nothing but confusion. If what Christians claim is true than what Jesus should have said is: 'I do not know when the day will be because I have voluntarily restricted my Divine )ternal 1nchanging 1nrestricted and 1nlimited -ttribute of Hmniscience' which of course Jesus did not say and which of course violates 'od's Immutable )ssence and which of course would make no sense at all.

?ome Christian -pologists try to give a better e*planation of the te*t of +ark #:::8. !hey say we must remember it was Jesus the 'incarnate one( who took on human limitations who was being asked about the time of his return. I find it interesting that Christians admit this te*t is a clear indication of the limitation of the "glory of Jesus(. <ut I say in reply, "@hat, 'od's 'lory can be limited, a limited 'od=( !he Christian says that in order for Jesus to function as the +essiah there needed to be a limitation on the e*ercise and manifestation of his so called divine -ttributes. -gain, I reply, "@hat, limiting the 1nlimited -ttributes of 'od=( !he Christian believes that the +essiah Jesus needed to have a limitation on the e*ercise and manifestation of his so called divine -ttributes. +y /uestion is: @hat positive or good purpose do these so called limitations on 'od's -ttributes have= Do these limitations bring more glory to 'od or less glory to him= @hat benefit would this so2called self imposed "limitation( of Jesus have to the resurrected and glorified Jesus= Does a fully -ble 'lorified 'od benefit from being previously disabled or handicapped= Does an -ll Jnowing 0ully 'lorified 'od benefit from being previously unknowing and ignorant= !hese limitations do not add glory or benefit but only bring negativity and disgrace to a oly and &erfect <eing such as 'od. If a Christian says the limitation of Jesus' Divine -ttributes was for the benefit of humanity not for 'od, I would say that 'od would have benefited humanity in a way that does not disgrace imself and in a way that befits is +a.esty. 'od becoming a weak, dirty human being certainly does not befit is &ure oly +a.esty. Does 'od bring benefits to humanity by disgracing imself or does e instead do as Islam teaches, achieve is ob.ectives of benefiting humanity while maintaining is 0ull, &erfect and '!ranscendent' 'lory at the same time= I will post a link to my video about 'od's !ranscendence in the video description below. 6otice, Jesus did not specify that he did not know when the hour would be during his incarnate state or human state of e*istence, and that had known 3past tense4, or does know 3present tense4, or would know 3future tense4 when the time will be in his 'loried Divine state of being 3regardless of whether it was in his glorified state before incarnation or after resurrection4. -gain my Christian friends, stop putting words into the mouth of Jesus, Jesus made no such distinction instead he made a general statement. !he statement being general in nature applies to both past, present and future times. !herefore, Jesus does not know the time of his second coming even after his alleged death and resurrection which would allegedly bring Jesus back to being the 0ully 'lorified 'od that he is supposed to have been before the incarnation 3the same applies to the per2incarnate 'lorified state of Jesus, the generality of the statement in +ark #:::8 implies Jesus did not have this knowledge at that stage of e*istence also4. !hus we have a limitation of an alleged Divine -ttribute of Jesus. -ctions stem from attributes and ability, they cannot be separated. !he fact that Jesus could not perform the action of revealing the time of his second coming means that he did not posses the Divine -ttribute of Hmniscience 3-ll Jnowledge4 and it also implies Jesus does not posses the Divine -ttributes of Hmnipotence 3-ll &ower4 because only the 0ather could perform the action. ?o the 0ather has the Jnowledge and the &ower but Jesus did not. Hne being having different attributes than another being implies different beings, different essences. In this case Jesus being fully human 3not Divine4 and 'od being of course 0ully Divine. 'od is Infinite and too e*alted and !ranscendent to take for imself attributes which are particular to finite human beings 3human attributes of limitation and weakness4. It seems the Christian concept of 'od is not one of 'reatness, not one of +a.esty and not one of !ranscendence. -gain see my video about 'od's !ranscendence. Come on, a limitation is a weakness not a strength, it has negative connotations and thus it cannot be

applied to 'od without blaspheming against is &erfect, -ll &owerful and oly 6ature. !hus, the Christians are living in a severe state of blasphemy against 'od, due to their false belief. !he Christian is thus, ideologically and theologically speaking, unknowingly living in an state of war with 'od, a war which they will inevitably lose. ,ets read about 'od's reaction to this false belief. Kur'an #L:MM2L: says: 'hey say# 345llah6 ost ,racious has begotten a son73 8ertainly you have %ade an abo%inable assertion& +hereby the heavens are al%ost torn, and the earth is s(lit asunder, and the %ountains fall in ruins, For that they have attributed to 'he 5ll- erciful a child/ For it is not consonant with the %a9esty of 45llah6 ost ,racious that He should beget a son& 'here is no one in the heavens and earth but that he co%es to 'he 5ll- erciful as a servant& 'od has thus elegantly refuted this false belief and set the record straight, that individual believers 3including &rophets like Jesus4 are not to be referred to as 'the son of 'od' but as 'the slave or servant of 'od'. -nother issue is, yes at times Jesus had supernatural knowledge, .ust like any prophet did. 0or e*ample, according to the <ible he knew what was in the hearts of men or their thoughts. <ut he did not have -,, knowledge, thatEs my point. 'od has all Jnowledge, is knowledge is not lacking in any way. -s we have .ust seen from the <ible in +ark #:::8, Jesus' knowledge was and is lacking, was and is imperfect, therefore he can never be 'od. It's really that simple folks. 6o need to play theological gymnastics here. -gain, how can Jesus posses a complete unlimited Divine Hmniscience yet limit that knowledge at the same time= >egardless of whether this was a voluntary limitation or not, the fact remains the Christian god 3Jesus4 was limited in an unlimited attribute at one time in history. @hat is really perple*ing is that while you Christians confirm this is true you still claim that Jesus did have a complete unlimited Hmniscience at the time Jesus made that statement in +ark #:::8. Can you honestly say that Jesus had -,, J6H@,)D') while he confirmed that he did not know when his return will be= I mean, JesusE ability to limit his alleged Divine Jnowledge could display Hmnipotence but it could never display Hmniscience. Hn this very fundamental issue Christianity has an illogical and irrational concept. Christianity is therefore fundamentally flawed as I have proven before in my video about 'od's !ranscendence. If I asked you Christians: "is Jesus a liar(, IEm sure you would say no. owever you seem to be very close to implying Jesus was a liar because he said he did not know the time, but youEre saying he did know. If he did know but stated that he didnEt know, that would make Jesus a liar. @hat is even more puCCling is that according to your belief Jesus had full Hmniscience before his incarnation, therefore at that prior stage he did in fact know ahead of time when his second coming to earth would occur. !o say otherwise is to say Jesus did 6H! know all things in his pre2incarnate e*istence 3but that's a blasphemy even to Christians4. 6ow again according to your belief, this Hmniscience was voluntarily limited and so Jesus all of a sudden did not know anymore when his return will be. ?o in that light please e*plainA how can your 'od originally know something and then later on not know it= Does your god forget= Does your god erase previously known knowledge= @as your god being honest when he said he did not know something that he previously knew= HJ even if your god 3Jesus4 did remove this previous knowledge from himself, then we should find a more honest statement in +ark #:::8, which would have been something like: 'I did know but now I donEt know'. It would be more illogical and irrational but at least the statement would become more honest. -t the moment all we have Jesus saying is simply "I donEt know(. -lso, as I have already stated, if Jesus is 'od then the -ttribute of 0ull Divine Jnowledge that he possesses is intrinsically connected to his Divine )ssence, which means it is never separate from him. !o say that this 01,, Divine Jnowledge was not known to Jesus at one time in history is to say that god did not know the knowledge in is own self or )ssence or e did not know imself or that is knowledge was separated from his own )ssence. !his does not happen, all of that is nonsense. Is your god unaware of the Jnowledge that is )ssence possesses= If Jesus had access to the Divine 6ature then he would have known the divine knowledgeG It's .ust a

logical conclusion I'm making.

........................................................................................................................
@elcome to video 5: in the series titled: "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od( discussing +ark #:::8. In continuation from video 58 we will now deal with....

73 Mark 13:32 is an issue of +i)ine ,ut"orit* not +i)ine /no#$edge.

Christians remind us that only the 0ather fi*es or determines the time of Jesus' second coming. !hey say that this is an issue of authority, not an issue of knowledge, and that Jesus does not have the authority to fi* the hour or time of his return. In other words, the Christians are trying to have us believe this it is not a matter of Jesus being ignorant but is a matter of him not possessing some kind of authority that the 0ather possesses. M* refutation: !his is false because the te*t is primarily talking about knowledge and perhaps secondarily about authority. !he disciples asked Jesus specifically about the knowledge of when his second coming would happen not about Jesus' authority. Jesus was asked about the knowledge of the time and he addresses the issue of knowledge. <esides, this Christian e*planation contradicts a verse of the <ible in which Jesus is alleged to have stated that all power had been given to him on earth by 'od. In order to show that the incarnate Jesus had -ll &ower and -uthority while he was living on earth the Christians /uote John #::: which says: Jesus knew that the Father had (ut all things under his (ower, and they /uote John #;:#N which /uotes Jesus as saying: 5ll that belongs to the Father is %ine& )ven more boldly +atthew 8M:#M /uotes Jesus as allegedly stating: 'hen Jesus ca%e to the% and said, 5ll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to %e 36ew International 7ersion4.
Object 2

?o I hope you see the contradiction here. Christians are saying that in +ark #:::8 Jesus had the Divine Jnowledge but did not have all of the Divine -uthority to release that knowledge yet these verses from +atthews' and John's 'ospel say that Jesus did have all Divine -uthority. ?o which is it, did Jesus have full Divine -uthority or not= -nyway, this is another issue which is taking us slightly off track from the original topic. ,et's get back on topic.
Object 3 Object 4

!he statement of Jesus is /uite clear, he did not say for e*ample that "no one has authority over the hour but the 0ather( but instead he stated that "...no one J6H@? the hour but the 0ather(. !his means that Jesus was specifically highlighting the fact that he lacked knowledge and was not highlighting his lack of authority. In fact if the Christian wants to continue pushing this argument further they will still run into a great wall of refutation because not only does a lack of divine knowledge prove Jesus is not 'od but a lack of divine authority also proves he is not 'od. 0or the Christian, there is simply no way out of this mess of false doctrines, as they are surrounded by refutations. 0urthermore, this Christian e*planation is blasphemous because it implies that Jesus lied. If they claim that Jesus was in fact not ignorant of the time of his second coming, in other words if the Christian claims that Jesus actually knew the time of his second coming but was only teaching the people that he did not have authority to release this information to them than the Christian is implying that Jesus was a liar. @hy= <ecause the implication is that Jesus said he did not "know( the time, yet he actually did know the time but was only forbidden from releasing that information. In other words he had the knowledge but not the authority. !he Christian who uses this argument has put words in the mouth of Jesus, words that he actually did not say. Jesus said he did not "know( and that is different from saying that he is not

allowed to release some information. -nother blasphemy arises here, this Christian e*planation implies that the 0ather and Jesus have two different sets of knowledge but that is a whole different falsehood which deals with the pagan doctrine of the trinity which I will not get into right now because again I don't want to go off topic. Christians, are you telling me the Divine Jnowledge of Jesus did not know the last day= ow can the Divine Jnowledge not know something= Do you agree that Jesus lacked Divine Jnowledge, or had no Divine Jnowledge at all, at least on the sub.ect of the last day= Did the 0ather keep this knowledge away from Jesus' alleged Divine 6ature= )*plain why the 0ather would restrict this knowledge from Jesus= I can understand why the 0ather would not want people to know but I donEt see why Jesus should not know 3if he is 'od4= Is Jesus fully 'od= IsnEt Jesus the Hne and the same 'od as the 0ather= -re you telling me that they have two separate amounts or kinds of divine knowledge so that one does not know what the other does know= >emember, being knowledgeable and ignorant are two different attributes which are opposites, and 'od is never ignorant. Hne cannot be knowledgeable of a sub.ect and ignorant of it at the same time. If Jesus and the 0ather had two different kinds of divine knowledge than they must of had two different attributes of knowledge which means they are two different beings having two different essences. In other words Jesus cannot be 'od.

........................................................................................................................
@elcome to video 59 in the series titled: "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od( discussing +ark #:::8. In continuation from video 5: we will now deal with....

70 Jesus fu$$* kne# as God (ut did not kno# as 'an.

!his Christian e*planation in related to the first one that I refuted. In the first e*planation the issue was Jesus knowing the time of his second coming but choosing not to know that time due to a voluntary limitation which he put upon himself in the incarnation, however e*planation 59 is slightly different and more primitive. It is said that Jesus as 'od knew the time of his return but as man he did not know. <asically Jesus spoke from his human knowledge not Divine Jnowledge. !he is the most common e*planation I get from most Christian laymen in reply to the problem of +ark #:::8. It is the common simplistic e*planation you hear from Christians who really don't know much about their own beliefs. !hey simply claim that Jesus fully knew as god but did not know as man. In other words they divide the person of Jesus into two natures, one 'od and the other human. !o prove that Jesus knew all things they /uote verses like John 8:89 which says: But Jesus did not co%%it Hi%self to the%, because He knew all %en 36ew Jing James 7ersion4. ?o it was Jesus the man who did not know the hour not Jesus the 'od. M* 8efutation: <ecause this Christian claim is simplistic let me also refute it simplistically with a /uestion. Is the conte*t of +ark #:::8 talking human mundane worldly knowledge or is it talking about ?piritual Jnowledge, Divine >evelation, or &rophetic 0uturistic knowledge that only 'od knows and only 'od can reveal= Is the knowledge of the time of Jesus' second coming a type of knowledge that we would e*pect an average human to know the details of or is it something that we would only assume 'od knows or that 'od's reveals to a &rophet= -n e*ample of human mundane worldly knowledge would be like going to a market and asking Jesus 'how much is that sack of rice over there=' -n e*ample of ?piritual Jnowledge would be to ask Jesus 'when will the end of the world occur=' ,ook, my point to

any Christian who uses this kind of argument is that the conte*t of +ark #:::8 is talking about Divine ?piritual Jnowledge, something that Jesus would and should know if indeed he was fully 'od, or would and should know as a man with the ?pirit of 'od fully dwelling inside his incarnate body. !he conte*t of the verse is clearly not about worldly knowledge. ?o the fact that Jesus said he did not have that ?piritual knowledge of the future event of his second coming into the world to punish the wicked sinners means that Jesus was speaking from his alleged Divine side or Divine 6ature and not from his human side and human nature. I know this sounds ridiculous and simplistic but the Christian claim in respond to the theological problem of +ark #:::8 is itself very ridiculous and it forces me to sound ridiculous in refuting it. It's simple folks, there is no way around this issue, Jesus did not know the time of his return because he is not 'od. !he fact that the disciples had asked Jesus about the time does not mean they believed that Jesus was 'od, rather it was because they believed Jesus was a human &rophet who received revelations from 'od like any other &rophet. 0or proof Jesus was believed to be a &rophet, see +atthew #9:N, +atthew 8#:##, +atthew 8#:9;, ,uke 89:#L, John 9:#L , John ;:#9 and John I:9$. Indeed Jesus described himself as a &rophet in ,uke #:::: and +atthew #::NI. !his is confirmed in the Kur'an 3#L::$, ;#:;, and N:IN4. 0urthermore, the more educated Christians themselves refute this argument because it leads to what most Christians call an unorthodo* separation of Jesus' Divinity and umanity which leads to what is known as the 6estorian heresy. It makes us +uslims ask silly /uestions for e*ampleA when Jesus said he did not know the time of his return was he speaking from human nature or Divine nature, if it was the human nature why didn't his Divine nature kick in and over rule the human nature and tell the disciples the time of his return, or was his human nature stronger than his Divine nature so that his humanity prevented the Divinity from speaking out, etc etc etc.= @e can ask many more ridiculous /uestions like this, I think you see my point. I can agree with Christians when they sayA Jesus as a man was limited, but shouldn't !rinitarian Christians believe that +ark #:::8 is not talking about Jesus as a man, I mean according to Christian doctrine it clearly refers to Jesus as "the ?on(. -nd as we know from Christian doctrine, the 0ather is 'od, the oly ?pirit is 'od, -6D Jesus who is called "the ?H6 of 'od( is also considered fully 'od. ?o how can you come up with the argument that he is limited as a man, that's irrelevant to the meaning of +ark #:::8 which according to your own Christian theology speaks of Jesus as the Divine second person in the !rinity= -gain, I don't want to get off topic but let me ask, is the oly spirit ignorant also, the verse clearly says the 0-! )> -,H6) knows the time, the oly ?pirit and the 0ather are two different persons in the !riune 'odhead according to !rinitarian belief= ?o if the 0ather alone knows, this implies the holy spirit is also ignorant. -nyway, lets stay on topic, the !rinity is a different issue. +oving on. Jesus did not say 'its not my role to proclaim or reveal the time', but he claimed to not know the time. ?o its not that he can't reveal it, it's that he does not have that knowledge in the first place. Did Jesus somehow not have access to his own knowledge, as if the knowledge was hidden away in the back of his mind 3whether his human mind or divine mind4= @hat nonsenseG -lso, the <ible is clear from >evelation #:# that Jesus did not possess all ?piritual Jnowledge or -ll Divine Jnowledge. !his passage of scripture says: 'he .evelation of Jesus 8hrist, which ,od ,5:; Hi%&&&& !his verse is talking about Divine >evelation from 'od, in other words " ?piritual

JnowledgeG Christians believe that Jesus was 'od incarnate, which basically means that Jesus was fully human but the spirit inside him was fully the ?pirit of 'od. ?o if Jesus did not posses this Divine Jnowledge or Divine >evelation which of course is ?piritual Jnowledge this means the the ?pirit of Jesus was not the ?pirit of 'od. In other words Jesus was not 'od because he lacked spiritual knowledge but the ?pirit of 'od does not lack ?piritual Jnowledge. -lso, Jesus had to receive the spiritual knowledge or revelation from 'od because Jesus did not posses it in the first place, only 'od did. !he giver is greater than the receiver, the one who has something gives it to the one who does not posses it. !he >eformation ?tudy <ible which was edited by theologian >.C. ?proul, contains thousands of study notes compiled from over N$ distinguished biblical scholars, commentating on +ark #:::8 it says: nor the Son& Jesus was conscious of His uni-ue relationshi( to the Father as the eternal Son, yet there was a limitation of His knowledge during His in arnation& +hat the Father had not revealed to Hi% about the future He did not know. )n that sense the %an Jesus 4the Son with regard to His hu%an nature6 was not omnis ient.! Christians, I rest my case.

........................................................................................................................
@elcome to video 5N in the series titled: "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od( discussing +ark #:::8. In continuation from video 59 we will now deal with....

71 It2s an issue of trans$ation: t"e #ords does not kno# in t"e Greek can 'ean does not 'ake kno#n or does not re)ea$.
?ounds like a clever e*planation right= M* refutation: !his translation is based on the writings of -ugustine of ippo 3a Church father who died in 9:$ C)4 . is translation only creates more problems than it tries to solve because again it seems to imply that Jesus actually had the knowledge but not the authority to reveal that knowledge. If -ugustineEs definition of "not knowing( meaning "not revealing( is applied to the whole verse of +ark #:::8 the meaning of the passages significantly changes. 0or the passage not only says that Jesus 3the ?on4 does not know the time of his return but it also says that humans and angels do not know it either. !herefore, if -ugustineEs definition of "not knowing( meaning "not revealing( is applied to the whole verse the meaning becomes "But about that day or hour no hu%an reveals it, not even the angels in heaven reveal it, nor does the Son reveal it, but only the Father reveals it& If we take -ugustineEs definition the passage becomes clumsy and redundant. In other words, there is no need to repeat the fact that humans and angels don't reveal Divine >evelation as this is common sense, everyone knows that only 'od does that. Clearly this is not what Jesus meant. In fact, my refutation to e*planation 5: can also refute this Christian e*planation. If Jesus said as recorded in John #;:#N: 5ll that belongs to the Father is %ine than why is the authority of making known or revealing the time not the authority of Jesus but that of the 0ather only= Dou see this clever attempt of -ugustine creates more conflicts for the Christians and e*poses their polytheism even more than it tries to hide. Hne blasphemy leads to another blasphemy and this is e*actly what is happening to

Christians who use this argument. !hey have run into an inferiority problem. Jesus is not e/ually 'od with the 0ather. Jesus is not e/ual with the 0ather because Jesus does not possess the authority to reveal the time of his second coming while the 0ather does. aving authority is an issue related to having power, and -ll &ower or Hmniscience is an Divine -ttribute. 6aturally, 'od has the Divine -ttribute of -ll &ower and -uthority and Jesus clearly does not posses this, therefore he can never be 'od. I repeat, he can 6)7)> be 'od. owever, to deal with the 'reek translation. Dou can go to many <ible translations and you will see the words are translated as: "no one knows( and not "does not make known(. @hy did so many <ible scholars and translators translate the words as: "no one knows( and not "does not make known(, it makes you wonder= ?o, in conclusion this is a very weak Christian e*planation.

........................................................................................................................
@elcome to video 5; in the series titled: "##$% &roof Jesus is not 'od( discussing +ark #:::8. In continuation from video 5N we will now deal with....

73 Mus$i's can2t 4uote Mark 13:32 (ecause it ca$$s Jesus t"e son of God5 a tit$e #"ic" t"e 6ur2an for(ids.
Christians who use this argument say that +ark #:::8 mentions a hierarchy of beings. !he 0ather being the highest, the ?on being ne*t in status and then the angels being placed under the status of Jesus 3who is of course referred to as the "son(4. !hey say this verse which +uslims use to prove Jesus is not 'od is actually claiming something about Jesus which the Kur'an in reality re.ects, that is Jesus being the "son of 'od(. !herefore, they suggest that the +uslim is being hypocritical or at least inconsistent with Islamic belief by /uoting this <ible verse against Christians. M* refutation: !his is another one of the more ridiculous and desperate claims of the Christians who believe in the Divinity of Jesus. !hey want to find a way to prevent us +uslims from pointing out to them the fact that +ark #:::8 proves that Jesus is not 'od all because again they know this issue is a thorn in the their side, a massive Christian theological problem which they cannot ade/uately deal with. It's good that at least some Christians will admit according to their belief, the word "son( in this verse refers to Jesus as the '?on of 'od' not to Jesus as the 'son of man' as the words son 3referring to Jesus4 and 0ather 3referring to 'od4 are mentioned together in the same verse and in the same conte*t. 0or the Christian 3not for the +uslim who /uotes this verse4 this verse must refer to the Divinity of Jesus 3or the Christian understanding of the title "son of 'od(4 and not to the humanity of Jesus 3or the Christian understanding of the title "son of man(4. -ctually there are three issues I need to tackle here in claim 5;. #4 !he meaning of the title "son of 'od(, 84 the rank of Jesus in the spiritual hierarchy of beings and :4 +uslims /uoting the <ible. 1 0irst of all regarding the meaning of the title "son of 'od(. In order to refute this Christian claim we first need to speak a little about history. istorically speaking it appears there was nothing wrong with being called "son of 'od( in first century &alestine. It was a common Jewish e*pression for righteous believing Jews at that time. !his has been historically proven in the writings of the Dead ?ea ?crolls. +r. !om arpur, who is a Christian &riest, says in the preface to his book, "0or Christ's ?ake(:

<'he %ost significant develo(%ent since !=>? in this regard has been the discovery of the title <Son of ,od< in one of the @u%ran (a(yri 42ead Sea Scrolls6 used in relation to a (erson other than Jesus&&&this si%(ly reinforces the argu%ent %ade there that to be called the Son of ,od in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any %eans the sa%e as being identical with ,od Hi%self< 40or Christ's ?ake, pp. Oii.4. !he truth is, this title was commonly used. In fact, the title has been repeatedly used throughout the <ible to refer to angels, prophets 3who of course were human4 and to other righteous believing men. ?ee for e*ample: )*odus 9:88, 8 ?amuel I:#:2#9, Jeremiah :#:L, ,uke :::M, Deuteronomy #9:#, >omans M:#9, John #:#8, &hilippians 8:#N, # John ::#28, Job :M:I, Job 8:#, Job #:;, 'enesis ;:9, 'enesis ;:8, and &salms 8:I& ?o the title when understood correctly in it's #st century Jewish &alestinian conte*t is not theologically confrontational at all to us +uslims. !he title "son of 'od( was used metaphorically, it did not imply that a person was literally 'od. ?uch a literal interpretation of the title would have been considered a blasphemy to Jews .ust as it is today a blasphemy to +uslims. Des the Jews once tried to stone Jesus but not because he claimed to be the "son of 'od( 3as he is alleged to have said in John #$::;4 but because he allegedly said: ) and the Father are one in John #$::$. Hf course we know that Jesus taught people by using parables and figures of speech 3see John #$:;4. Jesus simply meant that he was one in purpose with 'od not that he was literally one essence or one being with 'od. !he Jews perhaps intentionally misunderstood Jesus because they did not want Jesus to be their +essiah for their own different reasons and the gospels tell us that the Jews where always trying to find ways to get ride of him. !o understand what Jesus really meant by the concept of being one with 'od or being one in purpose you need to read John #I:##, 8#28:, -cts 9::8 and to some e*tent -cts 8:9829I. !he Kur'an ##8, #$:;M, 8#:8; and also :L:9 specifically condemns a literal interpretation of the title "son of 'od(. Dou see there was a gap of almost ;$$ years between #st century &alestine and the time the Kur'an was Divinely revealed. ?o there was lots of time in that ;$$ year gap for the title "son of 'od( to be misused and lose it's original meaning. !hat's e*actly what happened especially when Christianity spread to 'reece and >ome and was influenced by false beliefs and philosophies. !hus, the title "son of 'od( lost it's metaphorical meaning and became a title with a literal implication. Kur'an 8#:8; says: 5nd they say# <'he 5ll- erciful 45llah6 has begotten a son&< ,lory to Hi%7 'hey are but honored slaves 4servants6& -s we .ust said, two thousand years ago in &alestine the title "son of 'od( was metaphorically applied to any righteous servant of 'od. !he Kur'an in 8#:8; is specifically negating a literal understanding of the title while acknowledging that the people being called "son of 'od( are in reality .ust honored servants of 'od, which is precisely what the title "son of 'od( originally meant. !he Kur'an not only refutes the belief that Jesus is literally the "son of 'od( but it also proves that Jesus is literally human by reminding us that he ate food 3the implication being that 'od does not need to eat4, see Kur'an N:IN. ?o it should be clear by now that the Kur'an speaks literally about Jesus being human and that he is not the "son of 'od( in a literal sense. ?o we have seen that the literal use of the title is forbidden in the Kur'an. ?o why don't +uslims apply the title to Jesus or to other &rophets in a metaphorical sense= In response I say +uslims believe the metaphorical use should also be avoided due to the fact that the title has been abused, misused and has become a means to misguide the common masses of people throughout history. !he rationale of the +uslim on this point stems from a principle in Islamic ,aw that states that

everything is permissible unless specifically forbidden by 'od or by is &rophets. ?o if something is forbidden than that which leads to something forbidden is also by e*tension forbidden in order to safeguard humanity from sin and falsehood, even though the thing that leads to the forbidden thing is in itself not forbidden. ?o in this case the metaphorical understanding of the title "son of 'od( is in and of itself not theologically problematic for a +uslim who understands the original metaphorical meaning of the title, however the metaphorical use has been misused by many to imply a literal meaning, and so for the reasons I .ust gave, the title is now to be avoided due to it being misused, abused and made a source of confusion and blasphemy for countless millions of people throughout history. ?o how does all this translate into the day to day lives of +uslims who interact with Christians= @ell, for me personally, as a +uslim I never refer to Christ as the "son of 'od( because I believe it is spiritually safer to avoid the title. owever, I am often involved in discussions with Christians who inform me that Jesus is the ?on of 'od. In these situations I allow myself to apply the title to Jesus in order to bring the Christians to the proper and original metaphoric understanding of the title "son of 'od(. In other words, for the sake of dialogue, I use the title metaphorically to teach the Christian the truth about Jesus. Hnce the Christian agrees with me or at least understands me then at this point I inform the Christian that it is better to avoid applying that title to Jesus for the reasons I have already given you. !here is nothing wrong with this approach, nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about it. -s a +uslim I can use, for the sake agreement, the title "son of 'od( in reference to Jesus in a metaphorical sense, because it means he is a righteous servant of 'od, but normally I avoid applying that title to him for the reasons I have already e*plained. In Islam we have many titles for our beloved &rophet Jesus 3p4, such as +essiah, &rophet, +essenger of 'od, son of +ary, etc, so we don't need to refer to him by any additional titles. Instead we refer to him by the titles 'od gave us in the Kur'an and ?unnah. 2 6ow secondly we can discuss this so called hierarchy of beings. It really does not matter if Jesus was e*ulted above the angels or not, if he did not have knowledge of something than obviously he cannot be 'od, regardless of whether he is above or below the status of angels, it's as simple as that. >emember 'od knows everything, but Jesus did not. )ven if Jesus is greater than the angles, that alone does not mean he is Divine. <eing considered Divine and being considered as greater than the angels are two totally different theological concepts which should not be confused. -lso, even if Jesus was 'od, it would be pointless to assert that Jesus is above the angels as that would be 'a given', an automatic assumption that one would have once it is clear that he is 'od. !here is no need to mention that 'od is above and greater than the angels, that is already understood from the 6ature of 'od who is obviously above all created beings and things. ?o the statement that Jesus is above the angels is clumsy, redundant and makes no sense if in fact he was Divine. !herefore, on the contrary this statement found in +ark #:::8 would imply that Jesus is in fact a human and not divine. !herefore the point that the Christians argue from +ark #:::8 in favor of Jesus' alleged divinity turns out to be a refutation against them and actually proves the opposite, that Jesus is in fact not 'od. !he issue about Jesus being above the angels is not theologically problematic for +uslims because Islam teaches that all believers are considered above the angels. In the Islamic faith humans have been more preferred by 'od and are therefore higher than the angels in rank because of their ability to choose between right and wrong. @hile angels are created to be obedient to 'od, humans have been given the ability to do that by choice. umans have the free will to choose right or wrong but as +uslims we believe that angels don't disobey 'od because they don't have this free will. ?atan was a Jinn not an angel but that's a different topic. In the Kur'an I:##, 'od is telling the angels that -dam 3and his offspring by implication4 is higher in rank than the angels. !hatEs one reason why e asked them to make prostration to -dam as an acknowledgment from them that -dam

is higher than they are in the spiritual hierarchy of creation. 3 0inally and thirdly, still dealing with claim 5;, there is no problem with a +uslim /uoting the <ible when inviting Christians to Islam. -gain, the +uslim is not being inconsistent or hypocritical in doing so. @hen a +uslim /uotes the <ible it does not automatically mean the +uslim must believe in it as the @ord of 'od. Christians keep getting caught up on this issue, they .ust don't seem to understand why we +uslims /uote their scripture. @e /uote the <ible for your benefit not for our benefit, we /uote the <ible when we talk to you primarily because you believe in it not because we believe in it. Des a +uslim can agree there are certain truths in the <ible but that does not mean these truths are literally the @ord of 'od. I can find truths in the 6ewspaper but that doesn't mean I must believe it's the @ord of 'od. +uslims believe the KurEan is the #$$% literal @ord of 'od, it is the only authoritative, authentic and preserved Divine scripture free from all human and philosophical ideas. !he KurEan is the last and final scriptural revelation given to mankind by 'od. !hus a +uslim does not need any other scripture to base his or her faith on, either in full or in part. owever there is nothing unusual or ob.ectionable if a +uslim believes that the <ible contains apparent truths, this is because the KurEan itself confirms this fact. In reference to &rophet +uhammad the KurEan says: "'hose who follow the essenger the unlettered (ro(het they find described in the 'orah that is with the% and in the ,os(elA( 3KurEan I:#NI4. @hen the KurEan mentions these previous revelations from 'od it of course means 'the original scriptures or revelations' that the prophets of old received. ?o we +uslims believe there are apparent truths in the <ible, in this case the Kur'an says we can find descriptions of &rophet +uhammad in the <ible. 6ow, has the <ible as it e*ists today in it's present form been changed or corrupted by men, this is not the time to debate that topic. -nyway, it does not mean that a +uslim must accept the totality of the <ible as the @ord of 'od before we /uote from it. ?o the issue of +uslims /uoting the <ible should be cleared up and it should make perfect sense to you now.

In closing let me make it clear that I have made this video in order to respect, uplift, clear up, and protect the image and reputation of our beloved &rophet Jesus 3p4 because those who call him god have done him a terrible in.ustice and it is my duty as a +uslim to protect Jesus from such false claims. Christians, I leave you with a choice. Do you want to worship a lying, deceptive god who claims he does not know something when in fact he does know= Hr do you want to worship a god with attributes of limitations, weakness, imperfection and ignorance= Hr do you want to worship a god who lacks the authority to reveal to his people the time of his return= !he choice is yours, but I invite you right now to worship the Hne !rue 'od, the 'od of all the &rophets. I invite to accept the 'od who knows all things. !he Hne whose knowledge is perfect and complete. !he Hne who knows the past, present and future. !he Hne whose knowledge is neither ac/uired through learning nor preceded by ignorance. !he Hne whose knowledge encompasses all things, as does is +ercy and @isdom. 6othing in the heavens or on )arth escapes is notice. I invite you to come to -llah the -lmighty. !he Kur'an says about im: 5nd He is the 5ll-Bnowing, the 5ll-Cowerful 3:$:N94. Bnower of the unseen, fro% who% not an ato%*s weight is hidden 3"D: :4. Surely Eou have full knowledge of all that is unseen 3N:#$L4. 'here falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the ;arth, nor anything green nor withered but it is all in a clear book 3;:NL4.

In this video series I've employed logic, reason, common sense, philosophy, scriptural sources, history, commentaries, lots of prayer and personal research. -lso, I choose only to refute the more clever and more common Christian e*planations of +ark #:::8. I am aware of other e*planations but I found them all too weak and therefore not even worthy to address. I pray that -llah guides you to the truth. !o see my other video which proves Jesus is not 'od go to this link. &eace.