JESUS

[Cristian]

The two are indeed very different. The Qur'an is not a history book arranged into chronological chapters as an unfamiliar reader may assume. On the contrary, it is a Book of guidance teaching us about God's message for the whole of humanity. The Qur'an has a unique, sophisticated structural coherence such that its key messages are embedded throughout, allowing everyone to benefit from it irrespective of how much they read. That is, a person does not need to read the entire or large portions of the Qur’ān in one sitting to find out what God wants from us. This also facilitates regular reading, reflection and memorisation. The narratives of the Qur'an are lesson-oriented, thus they are presented in ways that reinforce and highlight contextual themes and messages, with superfluous details such as precise geographic location or detailed genealogy intentionally omitted to maintain focus on the goals of each narrative.

I understand your point, I believe it comes down to a matter of perspective. I personally believe that the Word of God should not be simple. If it comes from the God who created the universe and the incredibly complex nature we observe today, simplicity and easy memorization would not necessarily be characteristics of such a powerful God. I also feel more comfortable believing in a book that places itself under historical scrutiny by including what many might call “superfluous” historical details—details that have in fact been crucial for archaeology for centuries—which makes it empirically verifiable. A book written purely by human effort would not be able to achieve this.

A important fact to me is that the Bible was not written by a single person, but by around 40 authors, including kings, very poor individuals, and people from vastly different backgrounds. Many use this as an argument against the Bible, and I would agree—if the Bible did not agree so strongly with itself from beginning to end. The Bible contains more than 63,000 cross-references, proclaims over 300 Messianic prophecies (both implicit and explicit), and fulfills them within the same book (the Bible). It also presents a theological depth so complex that entire bachelor’s degrees are dedicated to studying it. It is virtually impossible for a book written by 40 different people to contain over 63,000 cross-references and maintain such internal consistency unless the ultimate author were the same—namely, God.

Furthermore, relying on the testimony of a single individual is extremely dangerous, something that history—and religion—clearly confirms. Numerous dictators with emotionally compelling speeches have convinced millions of people to commit absurd and horrific acts. In the religious sphere, Muhammad’s story has been repeated many times throughout history. For example: Zoroaster claimed visions and revelations from Ahura Mazda and founded Zoroastrianism; Joseph Smith claimed to receive the angel Moroni, who gave him the Book of Mormon (a case strikingly similar to Muhammad’s); sages received the Vedas through the cosmic being Brahman; Egyptian pharaohs received religious texts through divine visions and revelations, and so on.

The list goes on, and Muhammad’s revelation fits the same pattern as all these others. To be honest, similar experiences did occur in Christianity as well (Paul, for example, who is heavily criticized within Islamic circles). However, in Christianity these experiences occurred to dozens of different people, across different continents, speaking different languages, over a period of more than 1,500 years, all pointing consistently to the same God. As I mentioned earlier, the text contains more than 63,000 cross-references and maintains coherence from beginning to end. There is no literature—religious or otherwise—in the world that compares to the Bible in this regard. Above all, it is historically verifiable, and therefore no one can reasonably claim that it was simply invented.

 

[Cristian]

The response to this point has been moved to my last post as it was too long to fit here.

Please write your message again, because for me this is the central issue. Islam exhibits an extremely high degree of syncretism, both at the narrative and theological levels. And this syncretism is not limited to the Bible, but extends to many other sources I have mentioned, several of which are not even religious texts.

Pre-Islamic Arabian traditions, for example, were not fully religious in nature, but largely cultural. Yet Muhammad draws heavily from these traditions and establishes numerous parallels with them. Concepts such as hanif monotheism, honor, hospitality, tribal justice, poetic language, and themes of judgment and destiny are deeply embedded in Islam. This raises an important question: why is a book that claims to be so “universal,” like the Qur’an, has so deeply and specifically Arab in its cultural expression? Yes, it was revealed in Arabic—but why does a universal book, claimed to represent the word of God, reflect Arab culture so explicitly?

 

[Cristian]

So far you haven't shown any!

You are correct. I want to highlight two points that stand out. First, in the Qur’an 15:9, it says that God revealed His message and would certainly preserve it. In 41:42, it also states that the text cannot be corrupted, neither in the past nor in the future. In 6:115, it affirms the immutability of God’s word, and in 112:1–4, it declares that God is eternal and absolute. Therefore, we can conclude that God’s word would be preserved and would not change.

Now the question is: why is God’s word only miraculously preserved when revealed to Muhammad? If we are talking about the word of the same God, does that imply that God “learned” to preserve His word over time? The Qur’an itself says that God’s word was revealed to other prophets before Muhammad. So why would God preserve the Qur’an miraculously, but not preserve the truth revealed in the Bible for other prophets? Was Muhammad the only one chosen from Abraham until his time to receive a perfectly preserved message? This raises another question: why leave people in ignorance for so long?

 

[Cristian]

Whilst the Bible may be a historical source, there are a number of issues that affect its credibility, one of which has already been highlighted that the Gospel authors were anonymous. How can one know that the words of the authors accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus? Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris, warns that, 'one should not take literally' facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels, because they are 'writings suited to an occasion' or 'to combat', whose authors 'are writing down the traditions of their own community about Jesus'. Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus, which is the subject of his book, he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels can claim to have been an eye-witness. [Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection of Faith (Foi en la Resurrection, Resurrection de la foi)]

The mistake you have made with regards to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is to assume he was transmitting information from contemporaries as the authors of the New Testament are believed to have done. To the contrary, he was a Prophet receiving Revelation from God in the same way that previous Prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham عليهم السلام received Revelation. This makes each of them an independent authority regardless of the time spanning between them. As for the evidences showing he was a true Prophet and that the Qur'an is the Word of God, these are many and a topic for a different thread.

About the authorship of the Gospels, as I explained, is almost impossible to deny that the apostles were involved and served as the intellectual source of the message. And as I said the attributions to them occurred very early in history. It is highly unlikely that a serious historian would oppose this idea. Even more with no evidence to suggest otherwise.

If we apply your own strict historical logic regarding “who can or cannot report what happened to Jesus,” Muhammad would fall at the very end of the line. Not only because he lived 600 years after Christ, whereas the Gospels were written within 30–70 years, but also because Muhammad presents an historically absurd view of Jesus: that he was not crucified. This is a fact attested by multiple external sources, including Roman and Jewish historians of the time (I can provide references if you wish), and is confirmed not only by the Gospels themselves but throughout the New Testament. Remember also that Paul, in addition to writing about theological concepts, serves as a historical record of the beginnings of Christianity. Paul was a Pharisee Jew who lived during Jesus’ time and affirmed his death, along with the other apostles and historical records.

Moreover, Muhammad makes strikingly clear parallels with several apocryphal Gospels circulating around him. Stories such as Jesus speaking as a baby and performing miracles, like animating birds, appear almost identically in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Muhammad also describes the actions of the disciples in ways that closely mirror the Arabic Infancy Gospel. The manner in which Jesus creates birds from clay, heals the blind, and cures lepers is presented in the exact same way as in the apocryphal texts I mentioned.

Using your own historical rigor, Muhammad’s accounts fail immediately. Not only because they are religious accounts about Jesus, but also because we are asked to trust a single individual, who allegedly saw a angel, and who simultaneously denies basic historical events that preceded him and makes several parallels with non accepted literature.

 

[Cristian]

Moreover, Muhammad makes strikingly clear parallels with several apocryphal Gospels circulating around him. Stories such as Jesus speaking as a baby and performing miracles, like animating birds, appear almost identically in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Muhammad also describes the actions of the disciples in ways that closely mirror the Arabic Infancy Gospel. The manner in which Jesus creates birds from clay, heals the blind, and cures lepers is presented in the exact same way as in the apocryphal texts I mentioned.

About the apocryphal:

It is also important to note that these books were written roughly 200 years after Christ and were not created to be divine revelations; they were primarily written to address theological questions. Yet Muhammad draws exact parallels with them. Therefore, using your own historical perspective, Muhammad’s accounts of Jesus collapse under scrutiny.

 

[Cristian]

It must be remembered that Paul never knew Jesus and did not ever meet him. Yet he explained Jesus' mission in a way that Jesus himself never did. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter and John, left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been. Instead, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus’ sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul’s very individual views, became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

Regarding Tacitus, he did not actually mention anything about Jesus being resurrected. As for Josephus, he was a Jewish historian who would not have affirmed Jesus' resurrection, hence almost all scholars agree that such words were attributed to him by later Christian scribes.

Paul encountered Jesus through a supernatural experience, just as Muhammad spoke of Jesus through divine revelations. Considering that Paul lived during the same period as Jesus and that the apostles publicly recognized his writings as scripture, while Muhammad came 600 years later, Paul is historically the most reliable source. Moreover, we can set aside the theological aspects of what he wrote, since his ideas are already expressed in the Gospels and other texts written by Jesus’ own brothers.

Not all scholars agree that the Gospels reflect Paul’s perspective. Mark was written before the Pauline epistles, while Luke and John have their own distinct theological influences. And Peter, according to Papias (c. 110 AD), was the intellectual source behind the Gospel of Mark, as I mentioned earlier.

You are correct that Tacitus and Josephus do not prove the resurrection itself. However, this does not challenge the historicity of Jesus. There are numerous accounts, both within and outside the New Testament, regarding Jesus’ life and crucifixion. Moreover, documents indicate that his disciples genuinely believed he had risen from the dead, as attested by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, where he records more then 500 eyewitness testimony of the risen Christ. Remember that in this passage, Paul says, “most of whom are still alive,” referring to over 500 people. By doing so, he essentially puts himself and the claim under verification, practically challenging his audience—anyone could go and check these witnesses. And he wrote this less than 25 years after the crucifixion, when many of the witnesses were still alive. From a historical perspective, the closer a testimony is to the actual event, the more reliable it is. Keep in mind that Muhammad’s claims, in contrast, are entirely unverifiable, as he lived 600 years later and in top of that contradicted a lot of what was written for centuries.

 

[Cristian]

there are a number of issues that affect its credibility

I apologize for being repetitive, but I would like to add a few points on this topic because the argument is simply incorrect. I study theology and have debated with atheist professors, and none of them suggest that the Bible is historically "unreliable." This is an argument I only hear from Muslims, which is understandable, because if the Bible is true, then the Qur’an would be false.

That said, I would like to make two comparisons to illustrate the inconsistency in how the New Testament’s historicity is often analyzed. We are talking about more than 5,800 independent manuscripts, with the oldest fragment of the Gospel of John appearing only about 50 years after it was written. This makes it the most extensively documented work of antiquity and the one with the closest manuscripts to its original composition compared to any other classical text. Do you honestly consider such a book to be “incredible” or lacking credibility?

By contrast, the Qur’an has just over 100 manuscripts, primarily from the 7th to 9th centuries—practically contemporary with its revelation. The New Testament is incomparably better documented and verified by independent sources, yet I have no doubt that the Qur’an is also very close to the original text.

Now, imagine we had no information about the authorship of the New Testament (though in reality, we do). Just the fact that the texts are independent accounts, widely copied, and widely circulated already strongly indicates their historical reliability. How could different people, on different continents, record essentially the same story if it had been systematically corrupted? That would be impossible. I agree that individual verses or even certain words may have been altered, but to claim that the entire message was manipulated would be false.

 

[Cristian]

The mistake you have made with regards to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is to assume he was transmitting information from contemporaries as the authors of the New Testament are believed to have done. To the contrary, he was a Prophet receiving Revelation from God in the same way that previous Prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham عليهم السلام received Revelation. This makes each of them an independent authority regardless of the time spanning between them. As for the evidences showing he was a true Prophet and that the Qur'an is the Word of God, these are many and a topic for a different thread.

Thats a religious believe. You have faith in most of what you said here is true, but anyone is allowed to disagree. I, for example, personally find it very unusual how the Angel Gabriel approached Muhammad and caused him such fear and pressed him physically so hard. And, after his first encounter, Muhammad returned home in a state of terror and asked his wife to cover him with a cloth, which is a classic sign of panic. Afterward, his wife took him to her cousin, Waraqah, who was a Christian scholar, and he was the one who told Muhammad that this was a message from God. Only then did Muhammad begin to believe it was divine. Some accounts even say he considered throwing himself off a mountain. I have never seen any prophet described as being so afraid and panicked upon encountering an angel as Muhammad did. A loving God wasn't supposed to cause that negative impact in a prophet. For example, with Moses, God reassured him several times, saying, “Do not fear, for I am with you.” Abraham also does not report any fear anywhere, and the same goes for David and all other prophets.

 

[Cristian]

You are confusing 'academic' for orientalist circles, which are notorious for neglecting facts for their own convenience. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم lived amongst his people for 40 years before the Revelation came to him and it was common knowledge that he was illiterate. The Qur'an makes reference to this in a number of places; had this not been true, the Arabs would have immediately challenged this point. Yet, there is no record of the pagan Arabs accusing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of not being illiterate. They instead accused him of having a tutor or of being possessed, etc.

It can be perfectly possible, I agree with you. even though is not 100% sure.

 

[Cristian]

As for traditions 'transmitted orally', again, these are merely desperate claims. The majority of narratives in the Qur'an regarding the previous Prophets and nations were revealed in Makkah, where there was an absence of Jewish and Christian sources. Moreover, Jewish and Christian oral traditions would usually be transmitted through years of teaching and embedded in liturgical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not trained in these languages, was not attached to a synagogue or church and did not sit under known teachers. Casual exposure to supposed Judeo-Christian 'oral traditions' in a pagan society would not explain a coherent theological system, consistent monotheism and a sophisticated polemic against such traditions.

Attempting to cast doubt on Companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit also doesn't work. Zayd was born in Madinah, and as mentioned above, the majority of narratives in the Qur'an regarding the previous Prophets and nations were revealed in Makkah. He was a young boy when he first met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and he had already memorised several chapters of the Qur'an prior to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم migrating to Madinah (through another Companion). So the fact that he was learning Qur'an before even meeting the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that large portions of the Qur'an had already been revealed shows he had no influence on the content of the Qur'an.

There were trade routes connecting Mecca with regions that had Jewish and Christian communities. Merchants and travelers circulated frequently, and Mecca functioned as a major commercial hub. Muhammad himself was a merchant who traveled extensively, and nothing prevents the possibility that he had contact with Jews and Christians, even if only indirectly. Therefore, intense contact may not have been constant, but there was undoubtedly some exposure.

Traditions were not only accessible through formal study. There were informal oral translations, and many Jews and Christians spoke Aramaic without formal education. Merchants and travelers also shared religious stories along trade routes. So it is an exaggeration to claim that one would have to be formally educated to hear and learn even superficial aspects of religious figures and traditions. Perhaps this also explains why the Qur’an repeats many Jewish stories without extensive historical context or details. The Bible, on the other hand, often provides much more detail, sometimes enough to support archaeological studies.

And using the logic of being 100% sure about something, it would be entirely possible that Muhammad never learned liturgical languages, never studied in synagogues or churches, and never formally trained under scholars, and yet still had knowledge of Jewish and Christian narratives.

As for Zayd ibn Thabit, being young does not exclude his later participation as a scribe. Even if he memorized portions of the Qur’an early, that does not rule out his significant role in organizing and recording the text later on.

 

[Cristian]

As for traditions 'transmitted orally', again, these are merely desperate claims.

I believe you are mistaken. The Talmud and Mishnah were compilations of oral traditions. Jesus frequently cites oral traditions, saying things like “You have heard that it was said…” As I mentioned, Paul in 1 Corinthians presents a confession that was transmitted orally in the first years before it was written down in the Gospels. Plato also lived before Jesus, and his dialogues were taught orally by his disciples. The writings only came later, through manuscript copies, and for thousands of years before that everything was transmitted orally. This, in fact, is a historical fact.

 

[Cristian]

The use of Daniel 7 does not force a deity claim, rather it can be seen as authority and God's approval due to a number of points. Firstly, there is no single interpretation of the 'Son of Man' and other views include a human Messiah. It emphasises human likeness, not divinity. Secondly, note that the figure described by Daniel 7:13-14 does not possess authority inherently; he receives it from God. Thirdly, Jewish literature often applies divine imagery (including clouds) to God’s agents such as angels. Fourthly, Daniel 7:14 says all nations serve (Aramaic pelach) the Son of Man; the same verb is used elsewhere for service to kings or rulers so the text does not explicitly say the Son of Man is worshipped as God. So in Second Temple terms, this is a God-appointed, exalted human figure.

I understand, but if you read the text in full, you will see that the passage attributes to the Son of Man “all authority and dominion will be given to him” and that he will have an “eternal kingdom that will never pass away.” In Second Temple Judaism, only God possesses absolute dominion and eternity (see Isaiah 9:6 and 2 Samuel 7:16).

Daniel 7 also distinguishes the Son of Man from angels, since he receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom that no one else has, and he is worshiped, something that angels never receive in the Bible.

It is true that pelach can indicate service to human kings, but the problem arises when Daniel 7:14 places all nations under the service of the Son of Man, not just a human, limited kingdom. The universal, eschatological context clearly exceeds the authority of ordinary rulers. Furthermore, in Mark 14:62, the Son of Man is described as sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven — what human could possibly do this? What human shares in God’s own glory, as described of the Logos in John 1?

Craig A. Evans argues that Daniel 7 provides an irrefutable basis for the divine self-identification of Jesus, not merely a human Messiah. Richard Bauckham supports the same conclusion. N. T. Wright also emphasizes that Jesus’ use of this title implies claims to eschatological and divine authority, not just messianic status.

Moreover, why would the authorities have attempted to stone him if he had claimed to be only the Messiah? The whole city was already shouting “Hosanna” and celebrating, yet what provoked such a reaction was his claim as the Son of Man, not a purely human messianic title.

 

[Cristian]

The high priest’s reaction does not prove Jesus claimed to be God because in Second Temple Judaism, claiming divinely-granted authority could be considered blasphemous even if the claimant was understood as human. This is supported by the fact, acknowledged in the Old Testament, that the Jews killed a number of Prophets. Likewise, Romans crucified people for claiming authority or disrupting social and religious order. So this shows Jesus was perceived as dangerous, not that He explicitly claimed to be God.

But still, Scripture says in John 10:30–33:

“I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you want to stone me?”
They replied, “It is not for any good work that we want to stone you, but because you, a mere man, make yourself God.”

Notice that this explicitly says God, so the argument does not hold. And Matthew 26:63–66 reinforces the same ideia.

 

[Cristian]

All the examples given are consistent with Second Temple Jewish expectations for a human agent exercising God-given authority. Proskuneō is a term that can be used in the Bible for kings, angels, or other God’s representatives which does not necessarily mean worship. In the Bible, kings and Prophets sometimes pronounced forgiveness or blessings on God’s behalf (e.g., 2 Chronicles 7:14 — God works through leaders). Acting as God’s agent in judgment does not automatically imply intrinsic divinity, only that the figure represents God’s authority. Claiming to be “Lord of the Sabbath” can be understood to mean he has God’s delegated authority to interpret Torah, not that he is God.

Your argument does not take into account that Jesus demonstrates attributes unique to God, such as forgiving sins, exercising universal eschatological judgment, and pre-existence. Such authority is divine — what other prophet in history has possessed this kind of power?

It is true that kings could forgive or bless on God’s behalf, just as pastors do in churches today, but Jesus forgives sins specifically, a prerogative that belongs only to God in the Old Testament.

Acting as God can, in a sense, be delegated, but that does not justify, in Matthew 25, the universal and eschatological judgment He executes

 

[Cristian]

A more accurate translation is, '…you, a man, claim to be a god', because the Greek word theos is used in the indefinite form here. Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work so it makes sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be 'a god' or 'divine.' More importantly, in the next few verses, Jesus corrects their interpretation by clarifying that the claim to be 'God’s Son' is about divine commission and authority - not a claim to be God Himself.

Sorry Muhammed, I just saw now ive already talked about this verse about John.

Anyway, you make here a linguistic mistake in your claim. In Koine Greek, the absence of the definite article doesnt automatically make theos indefinite. Anarthrous theos frequently expresses essence or nature, not “a god.” This is well established in Greek grammar. Moreover, in the Gospel of John, theos is never used to mean “a god” in a lesser or pagan sense (for example). The immediate context of John 10:33 shows that the accusation is ontological — that Jesus, being a man, was making Himself equal with God — not merely claiming delegated authority or divine commission.

 

[Cristian]

The Greek word hen simply means 'one'; it can mean unity of purpose, mission, or will, not necessarily unity of essence. This is shown by its usage in John 17:21–22 where Jesus prays that many human disciples will also be hen.

You are confusing two different things. Hen means “one” and can indicate unity of purpose in certain contexts, but your mistake is assuming that because it can mean unity of will in John 17, it must mean the same thing in John 10. That is a semantic transfer fallacy. Words do not have fixed meanings; they are determined by context.

In John 10:30, notice the context carefully. Jesus speaks about giving eternal life, says that no one can snatch the sheep from His hand, then immediately says that no one can snatch them from the Father’s hand, and only then concludes, “I and the Father are one.” The argument is clearly about power and nature, not mission. Jesus is equating His divine capacity with that of the Father. This kind of argument is not present in John 17.

Most importantly, if hen meant merely “unity of will,” why did the Jews attempt to stone Him? Unity of mission or purpose was never considered blasphemy in Judaism — prophets consistently acted in unity with God’s will. that was pretty normal.

Furthermore, hen is neuter, not masculine. If Jesus had meant “one person,” John would have used heis. The neuter form points to unity of essence, not personal identity. As Raymond E. Brown states, “The neuter ‘one’ points to unity of nature, not to personal identity.” Likewise, D. A. Carson notes, “The context demands more than unity of purpose; it is unity of being.”

Finally, John has already established this theological framework earlier: in John 1:1, the Word was God, and in John 5:18 Jesus is accused of “making Himself equal with God.” John does not redefine “one” in John 17; he presupposes what he has already established.

 

[Cristian]

The phrase used in Exodus 3:14 is: egō eimi ho ōn (I am the one who is)

John 8:58 only uses the first part of this phrase: egō eimi (I am)

Isaiah’s 'egō eimi' statements occur with explicit divine context ('I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior') which John 8:58 lacks.


We can therefore see that the exact phrase hasn't been used, only a part of it; the same part that is used many other times and attributed to other people such as the blind man in John 9:9. So using this phrase does not identify one with God. Moreover, Greek speakers sometimes used a break in grammar for vividness or emphasis.

With regard to the reaction of the Jews, again it does not prove Jesus was claiming to be God because people were accused of blasphemy for various reasons and Jesus later corrects their interpretation in John 10:34–36 as mentioned above.

I think your point is strong, but it rests on a mistaken assumption. You are assuming that only the full phrase egō eimi ho ōn (Exodus 3:14) can function as divine self-identification. However, in the Greek Old Testament (LXX), God repeatedly uses egō eimi by itself, without any complement, as a divine self-designation. For example, Isaiah 43:10 says:
“hina pisteusēte kai pisteusēte hoti egō eimi” —
“that you may know and believe that I AM.”

The same occurs in Isaiah 43:13:
“kai ap’ archēs egō eimi” —
“from the beginning, I AM.”

In both cases, the exact phrase egō eimi is used with no predicate. Therefore, John 8:58 does not lack divine context at all. On the contrary, the Old Testament pattern clearly exists and would have been well known. I can cite additional passages with the same semantics if needed.

Ans now notice something crucial in John 8:58. Grammatically, the expected construction would be: “Before Abraham was, I was” —prin Abraam genesthai, ēn.

But Jesus instead says:
prin Abraam genesthai, egō eimi.

This is striking, because it breaks normal grammatical expectation. Jesus uses an absolute present tense in contrast with a finite past event. As Daniel Wallace — a leading scholar and professor of Koine Greek — explains regarding this verse: “This is not a historical present. It is a timeless present expressing eternal existence.”

Your comparison with John 9:9 is interesting, but it is a false equivalence. In John 9, egō eimi clearly means “it is I,” functioning as simple personal identification within a narrative context. There is no theological debate and no reaction of blasphemy, nor would such a reaction make any sense there. In John 8, however, egō eimi appears without a predicate, in an explicit temporal contrast, within a theological dispute over Jesus’ identity. ONLY in this context do the Jews attempt to stone Him. The same grammatical form does not guarantee the same meaning, that is precisely the semantic transfer fallacy again.

The accusation of blasphemy also cannot be brushed aside with vague statements like “people were accused of blasphemy for various reasons.” In Judaism, neither messianic claims nor prophetic authority would normally provoke an immediate attempt at stoning. Self-identification with divine identity, however, would. If Jesus were merely saying “I am important” or making a general claim to authority, such an extreme reaction would make no sense. But either way, I already pointed grammatically the reality of his speech

Finally, it is another mistake to claim that John 10:34–36 corrects or retracts John 8:58. John 10 does not redefine egō eimi. Jesus is responding to a different accusation (“you make yourself God”) and He uses an a fortiori argument, not a retraction. As D. A. Carson — one of the most respected New Testament scholars — states: “Jesus does not withdraw His claim but strengthens it.”
Carson is known for rigorous Greek exegesis, and his work Exegetical Fallacies reflects precisely the kind of semantic and contextual errors being made here.

 

[Cristian]

Luke 23:34 shows Jesus acting as an intercessor who asks God to forgive, not as someone exercising divine authority. Appealing to Philippians 2 actually reinforces this, since it says Jesus emptied himself and lived dependently as a servant. A figure who prays to God, relies on the Spirit, and receives authority is functioning as God’s appointed human agent, not as God Himself.

Exodus 34:6–7 states clearly that it is God who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin. Please point to any prophet who possessed such authority.

Jesus coming as a servant, praying to the Father, and depending on the Holy Spirit (not just any spirit) does not diminish His divinity in any way. Rather, it demonstrates how the Trinity functions, with a distinction of roles, not of essence — and this distinction is crucial.

The Holy Spirit appears repeatedly throughout Scripture and acts in and through Jesus; this is entirely consistent with Trinitarian theology. Luke 4:1 says that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit and was led by Him. This is precisely because, in the incarnation, He voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of His divine prerogatives, not His divine nature, as I explained earlier.


*And Muhammed, as I’ve already explained the semantic issue of the Greek words and what they represented, I’m going to skip some of your responses bellow on that, if that’s okay with you. Otherwise, the conversation will get too long and I’d end up repeating things I’ve already said, and you would too in your replies.*

 

[Cristian]

Thomas was not claiming Jesus was God, so there would be no need for correction. If he was calling Jesus God then why didn't Jesus capitalise on the only instance where a disciple explicitly called him God? Even the author, John, brushes over this verse by saying, 'but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…' (John 20:31); he does not say that he wrote these things ‘so that we would believe that Jesus is God.’

Thomas clearly says, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), recognizing Jesus as God, and Jesus does not correct him. This alone is an explicit affirmation. A true prophet would never allow such a claim of divinity about himself if it were false. If you want to get in the greek semantics is no problem.

Furthermore, the purpose of John’s Gospel is not to list divine titles, but to prove that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God (John 20:31). In Jewish thought, the term “Son of God” (or “Son of Man”) already carries divine significance, especially when combined with His miracles. John did not need to explicitly use the word “God” in every passage; the theological context of the entire book already demonstrates Jesus’ divinity.

Remember that in chapter 20, verse 30, the author clearly states the purpose of the book, saying: “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” The purpose of the book is explicit, and throughout the text, the selections of passages about Jesus make this unmistakably clear. There is no logical reason to go hunting for Greek wordplay to deny this. Notice also that it says, “that by believing you may have life in His name” — tell me, which prophet in Scripture is described in this way and people can have life in the prophets name?

Among the early Christians, different interpretations about Jesus emerged, some more “humanistic” or docetic. When John emphasizes that Jesus is fully God and fully man — especially when he says that the Word, who is clearly God from the beginning, became flesh (John 1:14) — he is writing directly against these early heresies that denied Jesus’ divinity.

John also carefully selects signs and discourses that support core doctrines; he does not include every deed of Jesus, but only those that serve to establish correct faith. This is entirely consistent with the ancient practice of apologetic writings, which were intended both to instruct and, importantly, to correct misunderstandings

 

[Cristian]

Both of these verses support the fact that Jesus was a Prophet and servant of God.

According to the Scriptures, He was indeed a servant and a prophet, without a doubt. But “prophet” refers to His role within His human ministry as God’s messenger (which He certainly was), and He never limited His identity—and this is very important—to that of a mere human prophet. John makes this clear in every possible way through the titles and attributes he ascribes to Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus forgives sins, is the eschatological judge (Matthew 25:31–32), the Son of Man, and pre-existent (eternal). Again, show me a prophet who possessed even one of these attributes.