Well finally I got some time to add my 2cents (plus change)
The main objection put forward so far is that the Triniterian formula seen at the end of Matthew’s Gospel was an addition that does not reflect the true identity of Jesus proving the falsehood of Christ’s divinity.
Instead of making a whole case on one verse one should look at the overall message in the NT
**Jesus is called God **(e.g. John1:1, John20:28)
**Jesus is called Lord **(Greek kyrios ; Aramaic mar).
Being that Jews could not utter the true name of God (YHWH), Jews used the word “Lord” to refer to God. By Jesus’ time this became a word exclusively used for God. An example of this was recorded by the historian Josephus where Jews refused to address the Roman-emperor as “lord” on grounds that they would be blaspheming.
**Jesus is Saviour **(e.g. Acts 4:12 “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.")
Again this is important when seen through the Jewish culture of the time. For Jews, God alone could save. The OT is riddled with stories of the consequences Israel had to endure for not evoking God to save them but instead sought to allied themselves with foreign armies. (e.g. Isaiah 45:21-22 “… a righteous God and a saviour. There is none apart from me. Turn to me and be saved…”)
Jesus is worshipped
The Apostles on several occasions worshipped Jesus e.g. Matt 14:33 “And those who were in the boat
worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!””
Jesus forgives sins
We see in the Gospel accounts Jews criticising Jesus for forgiving people of their sins as this too is an act which only God can bestow.
So we can see that the writers of the NT were willing to attribute the divinity of God to Jesus and I will add this is also seen through the writings of the early Church as others have already pointed out.
Following from this it is important to note something we all know … Jesus did not write any of his teachings. This is of great significance because it means that he made the concious choice to rely exclusively on his apostles to do the teaching after his death. Jesus had to be pretty confident in their capacity to do this otherwise he would not have left it all up to them and would have intervened somehow.
Now apart from this there are several teachings given by Jesus in the NT that clearly are at odds with the Muslim tradition. Just to name a few
*]Baptism (whether by Jesus’ name or the triniterian formula – not important) is clearly seen in the NT and practised throughout Christian history but not in the Muslim tradition.
*]Celebration of the Eucharist. Whether Christ is really present is not important for this argument either. Jesus commanded to “do this in remembrance of me” and history shows Christians practising this command of Jesus but not Muslims.
*]God as Father. This is an important point because it is a massive departing point from the view Muslim’s hold of God. God as Father means God in relationship, a God that wishes to be known, a God that is interested and affected by our afflictions because he loves us as his children.
*]Marriage to only one partner…no explanation required I think.
The reason why I mention these points is because it shows that no matter which way you look you see a different faith and practise being taught to that found in Islam. Nothing that is of any significance that is mentioned in the NT is practised in Islam. Even the smallest of guidances Jesus gave us in the NT must be denied by Muslims like the prayer of the Our Father. Even this prayer is not in accordance with Muslim faith.
As I mentioned before to make the accusation, which is more a conspiracy theory than anything else, that there was an apostasy in the early Church which uprooted the Muslim Jesus with the Christian one is totally at odds with the historical truth presented to us. To believe in the apostasy is to at worst call Jesus a fraud and at best an incompetent and foolish man for none of the teachings that he supposedly ought to have taught were transmitted to even his apostles (So there is no such thing as Jesus being a good prophet). There is no historical evidence for a Muslim Jesus even within heretical or gentile groups of the 1st and 2nd century. The only thing a Muslim apologist can do is create unsubstantiated doubt which is not sufficient for any reasonable person to take seriously.
PS Someone brought the “begotten” argument against Jesus’ divinity. Once again if you want a good explanation of the trinity I urge you to read Origen’s “De Principiis” Book1 Chpt 1-3 found in www.newadvent.org
with this I bid all good night and God bless
Alex
