Answering Bethany: Deconstructing the 7 proofs of Jesus' sonship.

Assalam aleikum warahmatullah wabarakaatuh...

In my leisure time, I enjoy reading books on various subjects to broaden my understanding. One day, while browsing through articles, I came across an interesting piece titled "7 Proofs That Jesus Is the Son of God." This article, authored by Bethany Verrette, was published on November 18, 2019. From it, I discovered that Bethany Verrette is a freelance writer with a Bachelor of Arts in English from Christopher Newport University and a Master of Humanities from Tiffin University.

Considering her educational background, I eagerly read the article, expecting a fresh perspective, but to my dismay, the author stuck to the usual path, leaving me disappointed. The contradictions, misinformation, and illogical ideas compelled me to write this article... titled 7 proofs that Jesus a.s. is not the Son of God... to provide clarification.

The first reason she highlights is that Jesus was referred to as the Son of God by supernatural entities, which I assume she meant angels. She recounts the narrative of Jesus before his birth, where the Angel Gabriel visited Mary and told her that the child she would bear would be called the Son of God. To support her argument, she cites Luke 1:32 and Luke 1:35, which bears the same message, He will be called the Son of God.

I wish to avoid discussing unrelated topics; I simply request your focus so that we can

enhance our understanding, I would like to cite Luke 1:31 to Luke 1:36. This will provide us with a clearer perspective on the verses.

If we look carefully into the verses above, there are two very important aspects.

1. You are to call him Jesus.

2. He will be called the son of God,

   
   
   
   

   You are to call him Jesus

In verses 30 and 31, an angel informs Mary that she will bear a son and should name him Jesus. Adhering to Gabriel's guidance, Mary circumcises her son on the eighth day, in accordance with Jewish tradition, and names him Jesus. Luke 2:21

He will be called the son of God (by who)?

Bethany intentionally skipped verses 30 and 31, for reasons only she knows, which I believe was to conceal the angel's instruction. She quickly moved forward, picking two verses, verse 32 and verse 35, which bear the same message... Luke 1:32, which says, He... will be called the Son of the Most High, ... and Luke 1:35, which says, The holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. The question is, by whom will he be referred to as the Son of God?

The Quran answers:

The angel revealed the truth, foretelling that he would be referred to as the son of God when he matured. As stated in the Holy Quran, it is the Christians who have called him the son of God. To this day, they continue to do so. The Holy Quran, in the same verse, clarifies that calling Jesus the son of God is not an instruction from God or the angels, but rather a creation of the Christians themselves, and this creation is considered disbelief.

Quran: The Cow (2:116)

وَقَالُوا۟ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدًۭا ۗ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥ ۖ بَل لَّهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ كُلٌّۭ لَّهُۥ قَـٰنِتُونَ ١١٦

They say, “Allah has offspring.” Glory be to Him! In fact, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth—all are subject to His Will.

— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran

The bible answers

The Bible mentions that the first being to refer to Jesus as the Son of God is Satan, The evil spirits also called Jesus the Son of God, as demonstrated in Matthew 4:1 and Mark 3:11, respectively. Thus, when the angel proclaimed that he would be called the Son of the Most High, it was a prophecy that he would later be referred to by the Devil, evil spirits, and some Christians, as seen in Matthew 4:1, Mark 3:11, and Quran 9:30.

Interestingly, Bethany mentioned in her article those who referred to Jesus as the Son of God, overlooking herself and contemporary Christians.

Imagine this... Annisa is soon to have a baby. Her husband tells her, "If we have a baby boy, please name him AbdulGhafar." She gives birth to a baby boy safely and, following her husband's instruction, names him AbdulGhafar. Years later, at school, AbdulGhafar's classmates give him the nickname 'Assad,'

Is it reasonable for Annisa and her husband to discard their son's official name in favor of a simple nickname given by toddlers at school? No, no rational person would do that.

In that situation, Mary's son was officially named Jesus, a name bestowed by Angel Gabriel. Years later, during His adulthood, some beings began referring to Him as the Son of God. Are we truly in our right mind to disregard the official name given by Angel Gabriel and His mother and instead accept a name assigned to Him in adulthood by others? NOOO....We cannot do that.

The second evidence he cited is Mathew 16:13, which says,

Personally, I don't agree with Matthew for one reason. This incident is also described in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke, but in a completely different way. Examine the following verses closely:

In the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus asked the disciples about their perception of him during the same event, they answered with "God's Messiah." It is important to note that the phrase "the son of the Living God" does not appear in Luke's version.

Similarly, if you read the Gospel of Mark, it presents something different.

In his gospel, Mark also did not include the phrase "Son of the Living God.",

What is the meaning of this? Logically, this suggests that either Matthew included additional statements in the Gospel of Matthew, or Mark and Luke left out some texts in their gospels. So, who should we trust...

In essence, presenting proofs with contradictions is not permissible in any court of law, as such contradictions render the evidence invalid. This is why I first clarified my stance by expressing my disagreement with Matthew 16:13. It is crucial for Bible scholars to articulate the exact words of the disciples clearly.

In a similar manner, the author referenced another event in which Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, found in Matthew 14:33. 

Once more, I disagree with this verse for the same reason, How can the same events conflict with each other in various versions? Examine the verse below closely, where the same event is referenced with certain text omitted.

In this incident, Jesus was neither worshiped nor called the Son of God. Between Mark and Matthew, who is presenting the truth? Did Matthew include additional texts, or did Mark leave some out?

Once more, this proof cannot be submitted in any court of law, and as someone seeking the truth, I cannot agree with it.

Additionally, she describes the miraculous birth of Jesus as the fourth proof. She states, and I quote, If Jesus had a biological father, He could not have been the Son of God, and people would have been putting faith in a mere man.

From this statement, it seems that Jesus is viewed as the Son of God due to the absence of a biological father. If this is her implication, which I believe it is, then what about Adam? Did Adam have a biological father? Why isn't Adam referred to as the son of God, considering he also did not have a biological father?

Furthermore, Melchizedek had neither a father nor a mother, and neither a beginning nor an end. Why wasn't Melchizedek referred to as the Son of God?

Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek is "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life,"

Jesus is regarded as the Son of God because he did not have a biological father. Although Adam also lacked a biological father, he is not referred to as the son of God. In the same way, Melchizedek had neither a biological father nor mother, yet Christian followers do not consider Melchizedek a son of God.

I was watching a YouTube channel where a speaker provided an excellent example illustrating the impossibility of God giving birth to a human. He mentioned that it's illogical to claim or even consider that a cat can give birth to a dog. The sheikh offered a compelling example, which I used when discussing Daawa with someone on the streets. Do you know what the young man told me? He said it's against nature. So, if it's easy to grasp that a cat cannot give birth to a dog, why is it easy to accept that God begot a son among men?

video

Another piece of evidence she presents regarding Jesus' ability to forgive sins is found in Isaiah 43:25, where God declares, “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” I personally agree with this verse that only God can forgive sins, but I disagree with Bethany Verrette's assertion that Jesus forgave sins. Considering Bethany's degree in English Language, it's surprising that she overlooked such a straightforward statement.

Pay close attention to the language used by Jesus: "Your sins are forgiven." The question is, by whom? Clearly, by God, as stated in Isaiah 43:25. Jesus never said, "I have forgiven your sins." These two statements carry very different implications. "Your sins are forgiven" implies that someone else, not Jesus, is responsible for the forgiveness. In contrast, "I have forgiven your sins" would mean that Jesus himself is the one granting forgiveness.

Finally, Bethany emphasizes that the most compelling evidence of Jesus being the son of God emerged when John the Baptist baptized him in the River Jordan. She also mentions that God publicly declared Jesus as his son in two specific verses, which she proceeded to quote. These verses are Matthew 3:16 and Matthew 17:5.

Upon close examination of the verse, it states that a voice from heaven declared, "This is my beloved Son." Allow me to quote the exact text from the Bible.

“...and [Jesus] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven, said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16b-17)

According to Matthew, it seems he suggests that God's voice announced to a large crowd that Jesus is His beloved Son, and thus, everyone present at the baptism heard this declaration from God. This is why I believe Bethany made a definitive statement by saying... God publicly declared Jesus as his son......

However, if we closely examine the same statement as presented by two other gospel authors, we discover they contradict Matthew's account. They assert that the words were not heard by everyone present; instead, they were directed solely to Jesus a.s. Consider the two statements below carefully...

These two later writers appear to hold a different perspective from Mathews. They suggest that the voice was directed solely to Jesus (a.s.) and not to everyone, implying that not everyone may have heard it. This raises the question: was the voice intended only for Jesus or for everyone present at the time? This presents a clear contradiction.

Additionally, Mathew's statement is incorrect for the following reason: in the Gospel according to John, chapter 5, verse 37, it states: "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." During Jesus's ministry in later years, he publicly declared that God's voice has never been heard at any time, which clearly indicates that nobody heard God's voice at the time of his baptism. This further supports the argument that Mathew's statement is wrong and Bethany's conclusion is invalid.

Let's consider Bethany's perspective that the voice was heard by everyone. Does this mean we must believe it was the voice of God? No, it doesn't. There are numerous beings in the heavens, including angels. So why would anyone automatically assume that any heavenly voice is God's? It doesn't make sense...

another statement I would like to shed some light upon is in Matthew 17:5 it state

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him

This verse, much like the previous one, seems to hold a similar significance. I believe it was intended to emphasize Matthew 3:16, demonstrating that God openly declared Jesus as His son. As I mentioned, Jesus publicly stated that God's voice had never been heard, which parallels this situation. Additionally, the verse introduces a different perspective, mentioning a voice from the cloud rather than from heaven. Bethany asserts that it's God's voice, but does this imply that God was in the clouds at that moment and not in heaven? Isn't this contradictory? We know that at that time, there were three men in the cloud—Jesus, Moses, and Elijah—completely enveloped by the clouds. There is no verse confirming a fourth presence. Perhaps the voice could have been from Elijah or Moses, which is illogical since Jesus is not the son of either. If she insists it is God's voice, then we need evidence that God was in the clouds at that moment and not in heaven!

These are appropriate responses demonstrating that Issa a.s. is not the son of God, as there is no substantial evidence to confirm that he is truly His son.

Allah s.w.t. Says

.