Muslim PRESSES 3 Christians In 1 Go & It Doesn’t Go Well!

A discussion at Speaker’s Corner quickly turned into a serious debate when Muslim preacher Hamza challenged three Christians over one of the biggest questions separating Christianity and Islam: Did Jesus actually claim to be God?

Hamza focused heavily on John 17:3, arguing that Jesus identifies the Father as the “only true God” and therefore excludes Himself from deity. The Christians pushed back by bringing the conversation to John 10, where Jesus declares that He and the Father are one.

But the debate becomes much clearer when we stop isolating individual sentences and allow John’s writings and the Old Testament passages behind them to interpret the claims Jesus makes.

Does John 17:3 Deny the Deity of Christ?… No, John Calls Jesus “Eternal Life”

Hamza’s argument centered on Jesus addressing the Father as the only true God. From his perspective, if the Father is the only true God and Jesus is distinguished from the Father, Jesus cannot also be God.

John records Jesus praying:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” — John 17:3 

The distinction between the Father and the Son is obvious. Christians do not deny that distinction. The question is whether distinction between persons means that Jesus cannot share the divine nature.

John’s own writings show why that conclusion does not follow.

If Hamza’s reasoning were applied consistently, John 17:3 would not merely distinguish Jesus from “the only true God.” It would also distinguish Jesus from “eternal life.”

Yet John explicitly identifies Christ with eternal life elsewhere.

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;” — 1 John 1:1–2 

Jesus can therefore be distinguished from “eternal life” grammatically in one passage while being identified as eternal life in another.

The same principle applies to His relationship with the Father. Personal distinction does not automatically prove a difference in divine nature.

John actually begins his Gospel with precisely this kind of language:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1:1 

The Word is “with God,” showing distinction, while simultaneously being described as God.

John Goes Even Further in 1 John 5:20 and John 17:5

John makes the case even stronger toward the end of his first epistle. It specifically highlighted this passage because John uses language that directly challenges the claim that Jesus cannot be called the true God.

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” — 1 John 5:20 

Notice the combination: “the true God” and “eternal life.”

John’s writings therefore give us the broader context necessary to understand John 17:3. We should not force one verse to contradict the theological framework John establishes throughout his Gospel and epistles.

The discussion then moved to John 17:5. Hamza argued that Jesus asking the Father to glorify Him presented a problem for Christianity.

Yet the verse says something remarkable:

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” — John 17:5

Jesus does not merely ask to receive something entirely new. He speaks about glory He already had with the Father, BEFORE the world existed.

As discussed, this points directly to Christ’s pre-existence. Jesus speaks of sharing glory with the Father before creation and of returning to that glory.

It also connected this idea with Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. Christ laid aside His garment, served them, and afterward put the garment back on.

This was presented as a visual picture of the larger theme John develops: Christ came down in humility to serve and would return to the glory He possessed before.

“I and My Father Are One”: Psalm 95 Reveals the Bigger Picture

The conversation eventually returned to one of Christianity’s most important passages concerning Jesus’ identity:

“I and my Father are one.” — John 10:30 

Hamza wanted to challenge the Christian interpretation by reading the surrounding context and eventually appealing to Psalm 82:6. But reading the context actually strengthens the Christian argument.

Jesus says:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” — John 10:27–30 

Jesus possesses sheep. They hear His voice. They follow Him. He gives them eternal life. They are secure in His hand, just as they are secure in the Father’s hand.

That language becomes especially significant when we compare it with the Old Testament.

One of the most important points raised concerns Psalm 95. Discussions about John 10 often jump immediately to Psalm 82 because Jesus quotes it later in the chapter. But the imagery preceding John 10:30 strongly echoes Psalm 95.

“O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart…” — Psalm 95:6–8 

Psalm 95 speaks about the LORD as the shepherd. His people are His sheep. They are in His hand, and they are commanded to hear His voice.

Now compare that with Jesus in John 10.

Jesus has sheep.

The sheep hear His voice.

The sheep follow Him.

They are in His hand.

He gives them eternal life.

Then Jesus declares:

“I and my Father are one.” — John 10:30

The parallels are difficult to dismiss. Jesus takes shepherd imagery associated with the LORD in Psalm 95 and applies it to Himself alongside the Father. It argues that this Old Testament background is essential for understanding why Jesus’ opponents reacted so strongly.

Why Did They Pick Up Stones?

The reaction immediately following Jesus’ statement matters.

“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.” — John 10:31 

Jesus asks why they intend to stone Him, and they respond:

“For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” — John 10:33 

Whatever someone today thinks Jesus meant, His original audience understood Him as making an extraordinary claim concerning His relationship with God.

That reaction becomes even more understandable when John 10 is read against passages such as Psalm 95. The religious leaders knew their Scriptures.

They heard Jesus using divine shepherd imagery and applying it to Himself before declaring His oneness with the Father.

What About Psalm 82:6?

Hamza then appealed to Jesus’ quotation from Psalm 82:

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” — Psalm 82:6

Jesus says:

“Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” — John 10:34–36 

Hamza treated this as though Jesus were refuting the accusation that He had claimed deity. But the Christian response presented was different: Jesus is turning His opponents’ own Scriptures and reasoning back upon them.

If Scripture can use the word “gods” for lesser figures, how much less justification do they have for immediately accusing the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God?

More importantly, Jesus does not retract what He previously said.

The chapter does not end with everyone realizing they misunderstood Him.

Instead:

“Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,” — John 10:39

Their continued attempt to seize Jesus makes little sense if His reference to Psalm 82 had simply withdrawn the claim that provoked them in the first place.

Context Matters More Than Isolated Phrases

This entire discussion demonstrates why Biblical debates cannot be settled by grabbing one sentence and building an entire theology around it.

John’s writings build a consistent picture of Christ’s identity. In John 17:3, Jesus is distinguished from the Father, while 1 John identifies Christ as eternal life and speaks of “the true God, and eternal life.” The opening of John’s Gospel describes the Word as both with God and God.

Later, John 17:5 shows Christ sharing glory with the Father before creation. Finally, John 10 portrays Jesus as the shepherd whose sheep hear His voice, receive eternal life from Him, and remain secure in His hand.

Then Psalm 95 provides the Old Testament backdrop for that shepherd language. When those passages are allowed to speak together, the picture becomes much clearer.

Jesus is distinct from the Father, but distinction does not mean that He is merely a creature. John repeatedly presents Jesus in categories belonging to God while maintaining the personal distinction between Father and Son.

The debate with Hamza is another reminder that asking whether Jesus claimed deity requires more than searching for one particular sentence. We have to examine His words, actions, titles, Old Testament allusions, and the way His original audience understood Him.

For another example, read the next article. It examines another attempt to challenge the deity of Christ and shows why reading Scripture in its full Biblical context is essential when evaluating claims about who Jesus truly is.

WATCH THE VIDEO