This is the second part of our rebuttal to Shabir. Read Part 1 first.
We continue with James H. Charlesworth's concluding remarks regarding Jesus' self-awareness:
"Jesus' source of confidence and inspiration was only one: God, the Father. In this sense he thought of and referred to himself as the ‘son’; and so, according to Mark (followed by Mt and Lk), the connection is firmly made with the words of the owner - kyrios, ‘Lord.’ Of the last one sent to the vineyard, he is made to say: ‘They will respect my son.’ The possessive pronoun is powerfully symbolic. The son belongs to God and to him alone. We are left without further insight as to what Jesus might have meant by the reflexive use of the noun ‘son.’ Jesus' devotion to God, his obsession with him, and other authentic sayings that show how Jesus was possessed by God indicate the ways in which we should strive to grasp Jesus' self-understanding.
Our research leads to the conclusion THAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS GOD'S SON. Within Jewish theology that he inherited and in line with his own devotion to God, this term and title denoted a function that was to be performed with the will, power, and grace of God. We would be wise not to venture further with speculations about precise meaning of sonship in the mind of Jesus. Certainly we must avoid jumping into the use of Greek concepts and vocabulary, as did the Greek fathers, and attempt to equate the substance of God with son.
A more reliable method for understanding Jesus' perception of sonship begins with the Jewish reflections on the concept of the king as God's specially chosen one, his son, as we know especially from Psalm 2 ..." (p. 160)
Although we disagree with Charlesworth's claim that Jesus' words were altered (since there is no evidence to support such an assertion) and with some of his conclusions, especially his understanding of the meaning of "sonship" in relation to Jesus, one thing is certain. Many liberal NT critics are coming to the conclusion that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the Quran, but rather the Jesus of historic Christian faith, a point reiterated by William Lane Craig:
"Studies by New Testament scholars as Martin Hengel of Tubingen University, C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge, and others have proved that within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does one explain this worship by monotheistic Jews of one of their countrymen as God incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus himself?" (Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction, p. 160; bold emphasis ours)
After analyzing the importance of the Targums and the Dead Sea Scrolls in understanding Jesus' parable, noted professor Craig A. Evans concludes:
"... Together, all the features we have noted argue AGAINST the assertion that the parable of the wicked tenants is a creation of the Greek-speaking church. Indeed, as George Brooke has concluded, the complexity, interconnectedness, and integrity of the pericope ‘puts the burden of proof that it contains secondary accretions firmly on those who are looking for an "originally" simple story with a single point.’ We may also agree with his conclusion that Jesus' ‘use of scripture in the pericope as a whole is NOT the result of the creative work of the early church, BUT GOES BACK TO JESUS HIMSELF, to a Jesus who even taught in the tenple.’" (Eschatalogy, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, ed. [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan/Cambridge, 1997], p. 99; emphasis ours)
Furthermore, Charlesworth's appeal to Psalm 2 actually reinforces the Christian understanding of sonship, as the context of the Psalm itself demonstrates:
"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, ‘and throw off their fetters.’ The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, ‘I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.’ I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.’ Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." Psalm 2:1-12
This Psalm states that the Anointed King is God's Son who will rule over all the nations. The nations are commanded to serve the Son, otherwise they will all be destroyed.
Interestingly, Psalm 2 is applied to Jesus throughout the NT:
"You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.’ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." Acts 4:25-28
"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’ So it is stated elsewhere: ‘You will not let your Holy One see decay.’ For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay." Acts 13:32-36
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son’?" Hebrews 1:5
"So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’" Hebrews 5:5
"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations - ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ - just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star." Revelation 2:26-28
"A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne." Revelation 12:1-5
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:11-16
This means that Jesus is God's Son and the anointed King whom all nations must serve in order to be spared from destruction.
Lest Shabir try and accuse the NT writers of misapplying Psalm 2 to Jesus here are the comments of Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Michael L. Brown, regarding the rabbinic understanding of this Psalm:
"But there's something more. Note carefully those final words: ‘today I have begotten you’ (ani hayyom yelidtika; yalad is the standard Hebrew verb used for a woman giving birth to a baby or a man fathering a child). Either this is a direct prophecy of Jesus (and there are many Christians who would say it is!), or else it indicates that when David (or one of his sons) became king, his adoption by God was recognized as some kind of divine begetting. The choice of words is quite bold! ‘Today I have begotten you’ ...
For now, however, we will return to Psalm 2 in the Tanakh in light of a homiletical Rabbinic commentary called Midrash Tehilim. The midrash is addressing the words, ‘I will declare the decree. The Lord said to me, "You are my son; today I have begotten you."’ Which decree, the rabbis ask, is being referred to here? First, it is answered, the text refers to ‘the decree of the Torah,’ Exodus 4:22, where God calls Israel his firstborn son. In other words, just as Israel was God's son, so also the king was God's son. Next, it refers to ‘the decrees of the Prophets,’ citing Isaiah 52:13 (‘Behold, my servant will act wisely’) and Isaiah 42:1 (‘Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight’). Now, what is interesting here is that neither of these verses makes reference to the term son, yet they are among the most famous Messianic prophecies in the entire Bible, often pointed to by Christians with ultimate reference to Jesus. And the midrash ties them in with the king being called God's son in Psalm 2:7!
Next, the rabbis point to ‘the decrees of the Writings’ (i.e. the remainder of the Tanakh), citing Psalm 110:1, ‘The LORD said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand,"’ a verse quoted by Jesus himself to demonstrate that as Messiah, he was more than just David's son, since David in Psalm 110 called him ‘my lord’ (see Matt. 22:42-45). And all this is given in explanation of ‘the decree’ proclaiming the Davidic king as God's son. But it gets even better.
The final verse cited is Daniel 7:13: ‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Thus, in light of the Rabbinic compilation of Scripture, the exalted figure coming in the clouds of heaven is none other than the Davidic king, the Son of God! (Remember, this is the midrash not the New Testament commentary.) From a Messianic standpoint, this verse in Daniel is of critical importance. It goes on to say:
He [i.e., this one like a son of man] approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14
What an exalted figure!
Now, let's put this all together: According to this Midrash, the justification for calling the king the son of God is based on: (1) God calling Israel his firstborn son; (2) prophecies from Isaiah referring to the faithful servant of the Lord, clearly Messianic references; and (3) a royal psalm in which God says to the king, ‘Sit at my right hand,’ and the glorious ‘son of man’ prophecy from Daniel. If I didn't read this myself in the Hebrew Midrash Tehilim, I would have thought that a Messianic Jew put these verses together. They are some of the most common texts that we quote, all with reference to Jesus the Messiah. And here the rabbis tie them in with the Davidic king as son of God. In fact, Rabbi Yudan states explicitly that the words ‘you are my son’ REFER TO THE MESSIAH." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections [Baker Book House, November 2000; ISBN: 0801063345], Volume 2, pp. 39, 41-42; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Additional support for the Messianic interpretation include the following:
Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8]. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a -- Soncino Talmud edition
R. Jonathan said: Three persons were bidden ‘ask’, viz.: Solomon, Ahaz, and the King Messiah. Solomon: Ask what I shall give thee (1 Kings III, 5). Ahaz: Ask thee a sign (Isa. VII, 11). The King Messiah: Ask of Me, etc. (Ps. II, 8). Genesis Rabbah 44:8 -- Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 1, pp. 365-366)
Our teachers interpreted the subject of this Psalm with reference to King Messiah, but according to its plain meaning it will be right to expound it of David himself. Rashi (11th c.) - Cited in A. Lukyn Williams, A Manual of Christian Evidences for Jewish People (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919), vol. 2, pp. 122-123 (Source)
With this said, the only real reason why Shabir assumes that the Gospel writers turned Jesus into the Son of God, despite there being no evidence to assume so, is based on his assumption that the Quran is God's word. Let us break down Shabir's logic in order to demonstrate the fallacy in his reasoning:
The Quran is God's word and Muhammad was a prophet.
The Quran denies that the historical Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God.
The Gospel writers placed these words on the lips of Jesus.
How do you know that the Gospel writers placed these words on the lips of Jesus?
Because the historical Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God.
How do you know that he never did?
Because the Quran tells us.
How do you know that the Quran is correct?
Because Muhammad was a prophet who claimed that the Quran is God's word.
Furthermore, in his zeal Shabir did not stop to realize that his appeal to the parable of the tenants serves to expose his woeful misreading of the text. Some of what he says below reflects badly on his ability to carefully read and/or understand the point of the parable. But he does not seem to realize this. Take for example the following comments of Shabir.
SHABIR:
The Gospels show that Jesus wanted to confront the Jews about their history of killing the prophets, and of their intention to kill him also. So he told them the following parable which clearly was about them. The story is as follows:
"A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some to the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others" (Mark 12:1-9).
In this parable, the wicked tenants represent the Jews, the servants represent the prophets whom God sent one after another; and the owner of the vineyard represents God. The son obviously represents Jesus whom God sent last of all. So Jesus is shown to be different from the prophets. He is not one of the servants. He is a beloved son. At least that is what the Gospel writers are interested in showing.
RESPONSE:
We are glad to see that Shabir admits that the parable demonstrates that Jesus thought of himself as more than a prophet and actually believed that he was God's unique beloved Son and Heir. This is why Shabir attempts to discredit the authenticity of this parable.
SHABIR:
Those who will analyze this story, however, will easily notice how foolish was the behaviour of the owner of the vineyard. He sent his servants one after another and, knowing that they were beaten and killed, nevertheless sent his beloved son to the same danger. Although he had full power to act, he did nothing until his son is definitely killed. He is also ignorant of the future. He naively assumes that the wicked servants will respect his son. So can anyone compare this foolish man to God? But that is what the story does. This is why it is clearly admitted in the Pelican New Testament Commentaries, St. Mark. p. 309, that it is unlikely that Jesus told this parable.
RESPONSE:
First, we take offense at Shabir's snide remark regarding the owner [i.e. God!] being foolish. Shabir needs to show more respect and refrain from using blasphemous slurs against the true God. The problem is not with the owner, but with Shabir's inability to carefully read and/or understand the parable. As they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Or to use a biblical statement:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Titus 1:15
Second, in his haste to find a problem Shabir has only exposed his own foolishness. Seeing that Jesus told this parable long before the crucifixion, this shows that God does know the future since he knew that the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders would not believe in his Son and would end up killing him! How Shabir missed this point is simply beyond understanding.
Third, this is a strong argument for the inspiration of the Gospels. Since Muslims are keen to apply the falsification test to the Quran in order to prove its inspiration, Jesus' parable serves as a falsification test. The chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders could have proven Jesus wrong by simply doing the exact opposite of what he had predicted. They could have embraced him and prevented the crucifixion from occurring, thereby falsifying Jesus' prediction. Instead, they did the very thing Jesus predicted they would do, namely reject him and instigate his death:
"Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away." Mark 12:12
Fourth, Christ came to lay his life as a ransom for sinners:
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,’ he said to them. ‘I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.’" Mark 14:22-25
Therefore, not only was the Father fully aware of how the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders would react, he actually used their own corrupt sinful desires to accomplish his purpose of having Christ die on behalf of sinners!:
"When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me - one who is eating with me.’ They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, ‘Surely not I?’ ‘It is one of the Twelve,’ he replied, ‘one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just AS IT IS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.’" Mark 14:17-21
"‘Do you refuse to speak to me?’ Pilate said. ‘Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.’" John 19:10-11
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." Acts 2:22-24
As highlighted in the above quoted passage from the Gospel according to Mark, Jesus stated clearly that the Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. God was neither foolish nor was he at all surprised by an unfortunate turn of events, but he had prophecied this very sequence of events hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus. For details, please consult the series of articles The "Shame of the Cross" and its Glory.
Hence, the preceding points actually vindicate the parable since it clearly shows that God does know all things perfectly and has complete sovereign control of all events. Contrary to Shabir's charge this parable with its prophetic nature and its fulfillment in history is further evidence that God perfectly accomplishes all the desires of his heart in spite of man's sinfulness and rebellion, a point reiterated elsewhere:
"The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations." Psalm 33:10-11
"Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him." Psalm 115:3
"The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths." Psalm 135:6
"The Lord works out everything for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster." Proverbs 16:4
Fifth, this shows an uninformed understanding of how parables function. Parables illustrate specific truths, and as such not every aspect of a parable is meant to be taken literally, nor is it meant to correspond to every aspect of the truth or event that it illustrates. Jesus was simply seeking to illustrate his rejection and the judgment that would occur because of it.
Sixth, let us now turn the tables on Shabir. The Quran states that Allah sent prophets to Israel, some of whom they killed:
"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; and we gave Jesus the son of Mary clear proofs and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what you yourselves desire not, you are puffed up with pride? Some you called liars, and some you killed." S. 2:87
"When it is said to them ‘Believe in what God has sent down,’ they say, ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; and they disbelieve in that which comes after it. And it is the truth confirming what is WITH THEM. Say, ‘Why did you kill the prophets of God in times gone by, if you are believers?’" S. 2:91
"As to those who deny the clear proofs of God and kill the prophets, and kill those of men who command justice; announce to them a painful punishment." S. 3:21
"... they rejected the signs of God, and killed the prophets unjustly ..." S. 3:112
"... We shall certainly record their word and their killing of the prophets unjustly ..." S. 3:181
"Say (Muhammad), ‘There came to you apostles before me with clear signs and even with what you ask for. Why then did you kill them, if you speak the truth?’" S. 3:183
"Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelief in the clear proofs of God, and their killing of the prophets unjustly, and their statement, ‘Our hearts are uncircumcised’ ... they believe not, except a few. S. 4:155
"We took the covenant of the Children of Israel and sent them apostles. Every time an apostle came to them with what they themselves disliked - some of them they called liars, and some they killed." S. 5:70
Using Shabir's argument, we must conclude that Allah was acting foolishly for sending prophets and messengers who were then martyred. After all, if Allah knows all things wouldn't he have known that these prophets and messengers would be rejected and killed? If so, then why would Allah send them in the first place? If he didn't know, then Allah cannot be the true God since he does not know all things.
Finally, Shabir tries to pull a fast one on his readers. Shabir claims, "This is why it is clearly admitted in the Pelican New T estament Commentaries, St. Mark. p. 309, that it is unlikely that Jesus told this parable." Even though the Pelican series hold to liberal views such as deying the possibility of revelation and genuine prophecy, here is what it actually says:
"The parable itself has generally been taken as an allegory, the vineyard standing for Israel ... the owner for God, the husbandmen for the Jewish authorities, the servants for the various Old Testament prophets who had been rejected and persecuted (see below), the son and heir for Jesus. As we have seen (cf. p. 130), the parables of Jesus and the Jewish rabbis were not allegories, and the authenticity of this parable has been widely doubted, CHIEFLY ON THAT GROUND, but also because it presupposes:
(i) that Jesus knew IN ADVANCE about his death;
(ii) that he knew IN ADVANCE about the fall of Jerusalem (thought to be referred to in v. 9);
(iii) that he made an open and emphatic MESSIANIC CLAIM incompatible with his attitude in such passages as 1:44, 5:43, 7:36, 9:9f.A further point is that the behaviour of the characters in the story seems very improbable. What owner, for example, would keep risking his slaves, and finally risk the life of his son, in the way described here? And why did the husbandmen fail to realize that if they murdered the son they would still have to reckon with the father? The modern reader is not immediately struck by these implausibilities because he has the allegorical application in mind all the time, but to Jesus' contemporaries, who could have known nothing of this application, the story would hardly have presented itself as a credible, everyday incident such as parables normally depicted.
There can be no doubt that St Mark and his contemporaries did understand the story in this allegorical fashion, and few would deny that in its present form it contains secondary, allegorizing traits (see below); nevertheless, INCREASED KNOWLEDGE of conditions in first-century Palestine has made it possible to maintain that what we are dealing with here IS ESSENTIALLY AN AUTHENTIC PARABLE which can be reconstructed and interpreted with REASONABLE ACCURACY." (D.E. Nineham, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries: Saint Mark [Penguin Books, Baltimore MY; Reprinted edition 1967], p. 309; capital emphasis ours)
Notice that Nineham says that the major reason why many reject the parable is due to the assumption that this is an allegory which parables supposedly are not. Furthermore, Nineham clearly indicates that the other reasons why many have rejected the parable is due to the fact that Jesus predicts both his death and the fall of Jerusalem, as well as affirming his messianic identity. The underlying assumption behind these objections is the denial that true predictive prophecy exists. Since they have already assumed that predictive prophecy does not exist it is little wonder that they conclude that Jesus couldn't have predicted or foreknown the future. Shabir believes in predictive prophecy, which means that these very scholars whom he appeals to would attack the Quran and Muhammad as frauds. Yet, in spite of all this Nineham still admits that Mark's parable is authentic, the very point which Shabir tried to deny! Shabir probably assumed that since no one would bother checking up his references he could therefore get away with half-truths, miscitations and misleading quotations.
SHABIR:
The whole idea of God having a son is objectionable to God. God considers it an insult to speak of Him in this way. Therefore, although we love Jesus, honour him, and believe in him, we should not call him ‘Son of God’. And we should not compare God's plan with the plan of a man so foolish as the owner of the vineyard.
Jesus was a true prophet of God; he was the Messiah; and he spoke the truth. But he never claimed to be God's son.
RESPONSE:
Shabir again begs the question. He keeps assuming that Islam is true. Since the Allah of the Quran is not the true God nor is the Quran God's word, Shabir is therefore wrong to assert that God objects to having a son. The true Word of God, the Holy Bible, states that it is an insult to the true God to say that Jesus is not his beloved Son since God himself has testified that he is:
"We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:9-13
Second, Shabir failed to prove his assertion that the owner of the vineyard was foolish. If anything, we have shown that the only thing that is foolish is Shabir's misreading and misunderstanding of the text.
Third, Jesus indeed was a true prophet and spoke nothing but the truth. Since Jesus clearly claimed to be God's beloved Son and Heir, this means that Muhammad was a false prophet for denying the truth that Jesus preached.
This concludes our rebuttal. We continue to remain in the love of God's beloved and eternal Son, Jesus Christ our blessed Savior, forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We will forever love you, risen Lord of glory.
Rebuttals to Shabir Ally
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page