Explaining and Defending the Incarnation

Posted by Fisher

Aug 14

I recently ran into this video by a fellow named Farhan who attempts a response to David Wood’s video entitled How Can God Die? I have decided to post a video response of my own, so here it is:

Please excuse the less than perfect video editing. I used a different editing program than I usually use for making this video.

End Notes

See the article I wrote on my personal blog here: <http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-nabeel-qureshi.html>.
Nabeel writes in a note on his conversion story: “I mention that I had learned a very peaceful version of Islam. I belonged to the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, a sect that many Muslims consider heretical. One of the distinguishing features of this movement is that they consider military jihad to be abolished. As I wish to be forthright with all my readers, this note serves to explicitly state which sect of Islam I belonged to.” Source: <http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm>.
See the article Who Suffers the Consequence of Sins according to the Qur’an? at Answering Islam: <http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/suffer_for_sin.html>.
Here is the full citation: “Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object – the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.” Source: <http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=53#v18>.
If one is not sufficiently convinced that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, then I would like to refer the reader to this article from the Christian Think-Tank: <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bad53.html>

See Also

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Filed under: Apologetics, Christology, Elenctic Apologetics, Metaphysics, Religion, Soteriology, Theology

http://www.muslimmatters.org Farhan

So I'm watching this response to my video. You ran the text about me repeatedly saying "It does not make sense".

You're right, I did repeat myself. But, I explained that this was referring to what you would call in Western Philosophy "The law of non-Contradiction". By saying "God, who is uncreated, became created and yet is still God" is just like saying "A circle became a square and is a circle at the same time". It doesn't make sense, its a contradiction.

I read the first end-note about how Nabeel declared that he was an Ahmadi. the fact is, Nabeel aggressively champions that he was an ex-Muslim. That article he wrote is perhaps the ONLY place where he himself voluntarily disclosed his original faith. Everywhere else, he markets himself as an ex-Muslim.

I'll watch the rest later, in sha Allah.
Farhan

I just skipped around a bit in your video. You're citing where it says people will bear the burdens of others. If you encourage others to commit a sin, you bear the burden of the sin they commit WITHOUT diminishing the sin of others. So, if you tell others to commit adultery and they do it, you are punished for their crimes because you were a direct cause in it.

This is not the same as in the modern Christian sense, where there's a "transfer" of sin.
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

You're right, I did repeat myself. But, I explained that this was referring to what you would call in Western Philosophy "The law of non-Contradiction". By saying "God, who is uncreated, became created and yet is still God" is just like saying "A circle became a square and is a circle at the same time". It doesn't make sense, its a contradiction.

It has never been the Christian teaching that “God, who is uncreated, became created and yet is still God” (although there are some early church fathers who made statements that seemed to say something similar). Perhaps it would help if I quoted to you a section of the Athanasian creed, which reflects the understanding of God that all the major branches of Christendom agree upon:

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal…

…our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting… although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

And as I said earlier, when God the eternal Word becomes flesh, His divine nature does not change; it does not take on the nature of the flesh, but remains as eternal as it ever was prior to the incarnation, just like how water placed in a plastic bottle does not turn into plastic but remains water.

I just skipped around a bit in your video. You're citing where it says people will bear the burdens of others. If you encourage others to commit a sin, you bear the burden of the sin they commit WITHOUT diminishing the sin of others. So, if you tell others to commit adultery and they do it, you are punished for their crimes because you were a direct cause in it.

Perhaps you can explain that in light of the quotes from Sahih Muslim that I also pointed out. I’ve heard other Muslims try to explain it away before, but their explanations do not quite make sense of the fact that the hadiths quoted make an explicit connection between the Muslims’ sins being forgiven and the people of the book being placed in hell in their stead (cf. 37:6668). I think 37:6665 is quite clear when it says, “[on] the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”

Perhaps you would like to explain to us how we Christians become your rescue from Hell-Fire.
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

PS – If it'll put your mind at ease, I will see if I can get a hold of Nabeel and inquire with him about the whole Ahmadi thing. I've always known that he was a former Ahmadi but because I've never been a Muslim at any point in my life, I've underestimated the amount of antagonism that goes on between Ahmadis and Orthodox Muslims.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

First, "incarnated" does not mean "created."

Second, his entire "it does not make sense" argument is an empty Chewbacca Defense that commits the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
yahyasnow

Hello Farhan and Fisher

I would like to add there is no discaimer of "Ahmadiyyism" within Nabeel's conversion video (on YT) – none that I can recall.

As his conversion video gets more views than his article documenting his conversion I must state it is a bit troublesome to say the least.

Fisher, if you do email Nabeel could you please ask him as to why there was no mention of his "actual" faith in the conversion video – he was simply described as a Muslim with no qualification whatsoever. :(

Thanks

I pray you all have a happy Ramadan

yahyasnow@hotmail.com
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

I already e-mailed Nabeel. He should respond to the criticisms sometime soon (when he's not too busy anymore), so it's just a matter of "wait and see."