Apologetics · FaithLogic
Common Online Objections to Christ’s Deity — Answered
A cluster of objections to the deity of Christ circulates through Islamic apologetics websites and social media — alleged Bible contradictions, “Muhammad in the Song of Solomon,” “did Jesus ask forgiveness,” and similar. They rely largely on reinterpretation and misquotation. This section addresses the most common of them point by point.
The Most Common Arguments — Systematic Refutation
Argument 1 — "How Can Jesus Be God When He Asked for Forgiveness?"
The claim:
Jesus prayed to God and asked for forgiveness (Luke 23:34). If Jesus were God, why would he ask God for forgiveness? This proves Jesus was not God but a man praying to God.
The critical misreading:
Luke 23:34 does not say Jesus asked God to forgive HIM. The verse says: "Father, forgive THEM, for they do not know what they do." Jesus asked God to forgive the people crucifying him — not himself. This is intercessory prayer, not personal confession of sin.
What this verse actually demonstrates:
(1) Distinct persons — the Son intercedes with the Father (consistent with Trinitarian theology, not evidence against it)
(2) The Son's redemptive mission — as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), the Son intercedes for human beings
(3) The most profound expression of divine love — praying for the own executioners while being killed
This is one of the strongest arguments FOR the incarnation — the God who became human bore the full consequence of human sin and simultaneously prayed for those inflicting it. YHWH's hesed reaching its ultimate expression.
Jesus prayed to God and asked for forgiveness (Luke 23:34). If Jesus were God, why would he ask God for forgiveness? This proves Jesus was not God but a man praying to God.
The critical misreading:
Luke 23:34 does not say Jesus asked God to forgive HIM. The verse says: "Father, forgive THEM, for they do not know what they do." Jesus asked God to forgive the people crucifying him — not himself. This is intercessory prayer, not personal confession of sin.
What this verse actually demonstrates:
(1) Distinct persons — the Son intercedes with the Father (consistent with Trinitarian theology, not evidence against it)
(2) The Son's redemptive mission — as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), the Son intercedes for human beings
(3) The most profound expression of divine love — praying for the own executioners while being killed
This is one of the strongest arguments FOR the incarnation — the God who became human bore the full consequence of human sin and simultaneously prayed for those inflicting it. YHWH's hesed reaching its ultimate expression.
Argument 2 — "The Bible Says Jesus Is Not God: John 17:3"
The claim:
John 17:3 — "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" and distinguishes himself from God. Therefore Jesus is not God.
The refutation:
The verse distinguishes the Father ("the only true God") from Jesus ("Jesus Christ whom you have sent"). This proves two distinct persons — consistent with Trinitarian theology. But distinguishing the Son from the Father does not mean the Son is not divine.
Trinitarian theology has always said: the Father is not the Son. The Son is distinct from the Father. John 17:3 is addressed to the Father — Jesus is not referring to himself as "the only true God" because he is speaking to the Father and distinguishing their persons. This is the Trinitarian distinction, not a denial of the Son's divinity.
Compare John 1:1 in the same Gospel: "The Word was with God (distinct from), and the Word was God (divine in nature)." The same Gospel that has Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) also has Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — accepted without correction. Both are true: the Father is the only true God, and Jesus shares that divine nature while being a distinct person.
John 17:3 — "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" and distinguishes himself from God. Therefore Jesus is not God.
The refutation:
The verse distinguishes the Father ("the only true God") from Jesus ("Jesus Christ whom you have sent"). This proves two distinct persons — consistent with Trinitarian theology. But distinguishing the Son from the Father does not mean the Son is not divine.
Trinitarian theology has always said: the Father is not the Son. The Son is distinct from the Father. John 17:3 is addressed to the Father — Jesus is not referring to himself as "the only true God" because he is speaking to the Father and distinguishing their persons. This is the Trinitarian distinction, not a denial of the Son's divinity.
Compare John 1:1 in the same Gospel: "The Word was with God (distinct from), and the Word was God (divine in nature)." The same Gospel that has Jesus calling the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) also has Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) — accepted without correction. Both are true: the Father is the only true God, and Jesus shares that divine nature while being a distinct person.
Argument 3 — "Muhammad Is in the Song of Solomon"
The claim:
Song of Solomon 5:16 in Hebrew contains the word "machamaddim" (מַחֲמַדִּים). This is the Hebrew word for "Muhammad" — proving Muhammad was prophesied in the OT.
The four-part refutation:
1 — Machamaddim is a common Hebrew word, not a proper name:
The root ch-m-d means "desirable, lovely, pleasant" in Hebrew. The word machamaddim (with the plural of excellence ending -im) means "altogether lovely" or "the speech is most sweet." It is an adjective describing the beloved in the Song of Solomon, not a personal name.
2 — The same root appears 12 other times in the OT never as a person's name:
The root chamad appears in: Exodus 20:17 ("You shall not covet — lo tachmod"), Proverbs 21:20, Isaiah 44:9, Joel 3:5, and many other places. No one claims these are prophesying Muhammad. The root means "desirable/precious" throughout the OT.
3 — Ezekiel 24:16 uses the same root for Ezekiel's wife:
"Son of man, behold, I am about to take the delight of your eyes (machmad einecha) from you by a stroke." YHWH calls Ezekiel's wife "the delight of your eyes" using the same root. No one claims this verse is about Muhammad's wife.
4 — The word must be read in context:
Song of Solomon 5:16 (full verse): "His mouth is most sweet (mamtaqim), and he is altogether lovely (machamaddim). This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." The passage is a woman describing her beloved — the "machamaddim" describes the physical and personal qualities. Reading a proper name (Muhammad) into an adjective that appears dozens of times in the OT is linguistic gymnastics, not exegesis.
Song of Solomon 5:16 in Hebrew contains the word "machamaddim" (מַחֲמַדִּים). This is the Hebrew word for "Muhammad" — proving Muhammad was prophesied in the OT.
The four-part refutation:
1 — Machamaddim is a common Hebrew word, not a proper name:
The root ch-m-d means "desirable, lovely, pleasant" in Hebrew. The word machamaddim (with the plural of excellence ending -im) means "altogether lovely" or "the speech is most sweet." It is an adjective describing the beloved in the Song of Solomon, not a personal name.
2 — The same root appears 12 other times in the OT never as a person's name:
The root chamad appears in: Exodus 20:17 ("You shall not covet — lo tachmod"), Proverbs 21:20, Isaiah 44:9, Joel 3:5, and many other places. No one claims these are prophesying Muhammad. The root means "desirable/precious" throughout the OT.
3 — Ezekiel 24:16 uses the same root for Ezekiel's wife:
"Son of man, behold, I am about to take the delight of your eyes (machmad einecha) from you by a stroke." YHWH calls Ezekiel's wife "the delight of your eyes" using the same root. No one claims this verse is about Muhammad's wife.
4 — The word must be read in context:
Song of Solomon 5:16 (full verse): "His mouth is most sweet (mamtaqim), and he is altogether lovely (machamaddim). This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." The passage is a woman describing her beloved — the "machamaddim" describes the physical and personal qualities. Reading a proper name (Muhammad) into an adjective that appears dozens of times in the OT is linguistic gymnastics, not exegesis.
Argument 4 — "The Bible Has Been Changed — Muslims Proved It"
The claim:
this argument regularly cites textual variants (the woman caught in adultery pericope, the long ending of Mark, the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8) as proof that the Bible has been corrupted.
The response — textual criticism actually PROVES the Bible's reliability:
(1) The existence of textual variants is EVIDENCE of transparent scholarship — biblical textual critics openly document every variant reading in critical editions. This is how we know about them. Compare with Uthman burning variant Quranic manuscripts (Bukhari 6:61:510) — Islamic textual history involves suppressing variants, not documenting them.
(2) The variants this argument cites are well-known and consistently noted in modern Bible translations with footnotes. No theological doctrine depends on the disputed passages — the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) reflects authentic Jesus tradition even if its location is disputed; the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8 trinitarian addition) is rejected by scholars and not in modern translations; the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) is marked as disputed in most Bibles.
(3) The 5,700+ Greek NT manuscripts, 10,000+ Latin manuscripts, plus thousands in other languages — all from different centuries and geographies — show overwhelming consistency on all doctrinal matters. The text-critical process actually RECOVERS the original with high confidence. This is the opposite of corruption.
(4) The Quranic parallel: Hafs vs Warsh recitations (both used by hundreds of millions today) differ in thousands of variant readings. If variant readings in the Bible prove corruption, variant readings in the Quran prove the same.
this argument regularly cites textual variants (the woman caught in adultery pericope, the long ending of Mark, the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8) as proof that the Bible has been corrupted.
The response — textual criticism actually PROVES the Bible's reliability:
(1) The existence of textual variants is EVIDENCE of transparent scholarship — biblical textual critics openly document every variant reading in critical editions. This is how we know about them. Compare with Uthman burning variant Quranic manuscripts (Bukhari 6:61:510) — Islamic textual history involves suppressing variants, not documenting them.
(2) The variants this argument cites are well-known and consistently noted in modern Bible translations with footnotes. No theological doctrine depends on the disputed passages — the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) reflects authentic Jesus tradition even if its location is disputed; the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8 trinitarian addition) is rejected by scholars and not in modern translations; the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) is marked as disputed in most Bibles.
(3) The 5,700+ Greek NT manuscripts, 10,000+ Latin manuscripts, plus thousands in other languages — all from different centuries and geographies — show overwhelming consistency on all doctrinal matters. The text-critical process actually RECOVERS the original with high confidence. This is the opposite of corruption.
(4) The Quranic parallel: Hafs vs Warsh recitations (both used by hundreds of millions today) differ in thousands of variant readings. If variant readings in the Bible prove corruption, variant readings in the Quran prove the same.
💡 Responding to the Argument — Summary"Four common this argument arguments refuted: (1) 'Jesus asked for forgiveness': Luke 23:34 has Jesus asking forgiveness for OTHERS ('forgive THEM') — intercessory prayer, not personal confession. The verse demonstrates distinct Trinitarian persons and the Son's redemptive mission. (2) 'John 17:3 proves Jesus is not God': distinguishing the Son from the Father proves two distinct persons — consistent with Trinitarianism, not a refutation of it. The same Gospel has Thomas calling Jesus 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:28) accepted without correction. (3) 'Muhammad is in Song of Solomon 5:16 (machamaddim)': machamaddim is a common Hebrew adjective meaning 'altogether lovely' — from the root chamad (desirable). The same root appears in Exodus 20:17 ('you shall not covet'), Ezekiel 24:16 (Ezekiel's wife as 'delight of your eyes'), and 11 other OT texts without anyone claiming Muhammad. An adjective used as an adjective is not a proper name. (4) 'The Bible has been changed': textual variants are openly documented in critical editions and footnotes — this is transparent scholarship, not evidence of corruption. 5,700+ Greek manuscripts show overwhelming doctrinal consistency. The Quranic parallel: Hafs and Warsh recitations (both in use today) differ in thousands of variant readings — if variants prove biblical corruption, they prove Quranic corruption equally."
This is part of the FaithLogic study library — the biblical, historical and manuscript case that Jesus is God, with every claim linked to its source. Open the interactive version for search, cross-references, read-aloud, and the full library.