Monday, March 16, 2009

Christian vs. Muslim Exegesis:
Examining the Crucifixion of Christ

If you have been on this site for a while, you know who Osama Abdallah is. Feel free to enter his name in the search bar at the top of this site to see some of his work.

Recently, Osama has bombarded David's and my email accounts. His latest craze? The Bible itself denies Jesus' crucifixion! He has uploaded a rather extensive article to his website defending his views (NOTE: I would link to it, but it's been strongly opined that the site has a virus on it. For the protection of this site's readers, I will not link to Osama's site).

One of Osama's last words to David and me in his email (emphasis his):

To say the least: Islam's position about Christ never got crucified remains strongly supported even in your Scriptures, or the Bible.
This brings us to a crucial difference in the average approach Muslim apologists take in exegesis versus Christian apologists. Traditionally, when a Muslim apologist wishes to make a point, he will extract references that support his view, ignore or explain away references that do not, and provide his view as the only logical view.

Take Osama for example. He has said the Bible supports Islam in saying that Jesus was not crucified. He quotes Psalm 91 where it says: "Surely he will save you... no harm will befall you... They will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone... says the Lord 'I will rescue him; I will protect him... I will deliver him and honor him.'" Thus, Osama makes his case that the Bible defends Islam.

And his case would be pretty solid, if the Bible were just the verses he quoted. However, there's more to the Bible than Osama's whims. In the Bible, Jesus says:

- "that he must be killed and on the third day raised to life" (Mt 16:21)
- that the chief priests and teachers of the law "will condemn him to death and will turn him over... to be crucified." (Mt 20:18-19)
- that the Gentiles will "mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again." (Lk 18:33)

But really, if there were ever any question of what happened to Jesus on the cross, the guards should have put the question to rest because "when they came to Jesus, they found that he was already dead" (Jn 19:33).

The Christian, on the other hand, takes all the scriptures and provides the view that is the best fit. Then he bases his theology on all his conclusions. For example, the Christian acknowledges the verses Osama has offered. He then prioritizes the verses according to ambiguity. It is incontrovertible that the Gospels teach Jesus' crucifixion and death. The verses quoted by Osama, then, must be accounted for by some other means than Osama's suggestion. This is easily achieved by attributing those verses to the everlasting protection and safety Jesus has in his resurrection. Through Jesus' resurrection, the Father "delivered him, protected him, and honored him." That is the ultimate rescue and protection. Thus, by interpreting all the evidence together, the Christian apologist arrives at an honest, fair conclusion.

So Osama, the Muslim apologist, pretends that the Bible says Jesus did not die on the cross, whereas the Christian apologist lets the Bible speak for itself.

In sum. Here is comparison of a Christian apologist's approach vs. a Muslim apologist's:
Christian: 
1 - Read the text
2 - Draw the best conclusion based primarily off of unambiguous scripture

Muslim:
1 - Determine what you'd like the text to say
2 - Find verses that support your view, even if they are ambiguous
3 - Make your conclusion as if those were the only relevant verses
4 - If need be, deny the legitimacy of all verses that contradict your point of view, especially the clear ones.

Readers, please feel free to post in the comments some prime examples of this Muslim methodology that you may have seen. If we get a good list, it will make for an impressive display when speaking about and presenting Muslim apologetics to the uninitiated.

64 comments:

Royal Son said...

I hope Osama and other muslims will take the time to read my posts addressing "Crucifixion or crucifiction"

Let me give an example of the methodology of Ahmed Deedat.

In his lecture - Crucifixion or Crucifiction, he employed the following strategy:

* Talk about how superior Muslims are to Christians when it comes to Hygiene, Hospitality, and morality.

* Claim that Jesus had no witnesses to His crucifixion, based on Mark 14:50, even though Mohammed was not a witness and came some 600 years later, and just FOUR verses later it says:
"Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest."

* Claims that Jesus wanted to fight a Jihad to escape arrest and crucifixion based on Luke 22:35-36, even though TWO VERSES LATER it says that the swords were simply to fulfill the scriptures that He'd be numbered with the transgressors, and that if he really wanted to fight He could summon more than twelve legions of angels (Matthew 26:53)

Basically, he would take one or two verses and make them say whatever he wanted to say even if that point is refuted just by reading a few verses down.

I've covered these and more points in another thread here and on my new site http://www.answering-deedat.org

David and Nabeel, I'd truly appreciate it if you could drop by and leave comments for support.

God bless you all.

Anthony Rogers said...

I have one.

Since we (Muslims) need a scapegoat, someone to blame for why Christianity doesn't look anything like Islam, let's put on a blind-fold, spin around, and pin the tail on one of the apostles:

Oh look! It landed on Paul. Thus, Paul must have been the one who corrupted Christianity so that it no longer looks like Islam, the religion of the book that our prophet came to confirm. This Paul must have been a liar, a willful deceiver.

All of this is supported by the following passages. I will only quote the relevant words as the context will only confuse you:

Romans 3:7 "But if the truth of God THROUGH MY LIE abounded unto his glory...."

Philippians 1:18 "But what does it matter? The IMPORTANT THING is that in EVERY WAY, WHETHER FROM FALSE MOTIVES or true, CHRIST IS PREACHED..."

2 Corinthians 12:16 "But be it so, I did not burden you; nevertheless, BEING CRAFTY, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE."

Bfoali said...

I'm Pretty Sure Ossama Site Has No Virus. Did He Not Do A Check From Some Internet Program And Come Clean?
www.answering-islam.com
In Case You Are Afraid To Visit Osaams Site Please Feel Free To Visit The Above Site

Bryant said...

They don't care. They simply just do not care. That is the only explanation for why Muslims are experts in isegesis. Since they "know" Islam is true and Christianity is false, they believe that they are justified in treating the Bible anyway they feel. The bible is corrupted anyway right? So why not twist and turn verses in the bible in order to bring the Christians into Islam.


It is hard work dealing in Islamic apologetics. I think their level of inconsistency is only bested by the Baha'i.

Anthony Rogers said...

Bfoali,

How are you sure? Are you an antivirus program? I know Osama, whose word you are taking at face value, has said that his site does not have any viruses on it, but I have tried to go there more than once, mostly through links from other sites without knowing they were directing me to his site, and every time my antivirus software immediately alerts me, blocks the site, and then starts running a sweep of my entire computer.

Whether malicious or not, there is certainly something wrong with Osama's site.

And what's up with the link you provided? It does the very same thing as the AC website. In fact, unless I missed something, it simply re-directs one to the AC website, i.e. Osama's site. My antivirus software is never more active than when I try and access Osama's site and other related ones, such as the one you provided.

Warning to everyone: Don't link to AC or the site link Bfoali has provided above, unless he can account provide a better account or explanation for the above.

Nakdimon said...

WOW! Osama has got some “cojones”. To claim that the Messiah didn’t die on the cross is one thing, but that he never even got crucified is just plain stubborn. But at least Osama is consistent with the Qur’an and doesn’t contradict it, as most Muslims do, who buckle under the overwhelming pressure of the massive historical data that contradicts the Qur’an and then find themselves contradicting it by claiming that the crucifixion DID take place, but that Yeshua survived the whole thing.

Seeing that I was challenged a few times on Paltalk on this issue, namely, “where did Jesus say that he was supposed do die for our sins, I already had the verses stacked up. And these are just the verses where Yeshua said that He would die, since Muslims for some reason are “Jesus-only” advocates. Here they are, you might want to copy them and save them in a Word-file should you have not done so yet.


Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that HE MUST BE KILLED and after three days RISE AGAIN.

Mark 9:30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. THEY WILL KILL HIM, and after three days HE WILL RISE."

Mark 10: 32 …Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 "We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be BETRAYED to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will MOCK HIM and SPIT ON HIM, FLOG HIM and KILL HIM. Three days later HE WILL RISE."

Mark 14:8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare FOR MY BURIAL. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Mark 14:24 "This is MY BLOOD of the covenant, WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR MANY," he said to them.

Matthew 16:1 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and SUFFER many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that HE MUST BE KILLED and on the third day be RAISED TO LIFE.

Matthew 17:22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23 THEY WILL KILL HIM, and on the third day HE WILL BE RAISED TO LIFE."

Matthew 20:17 Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18 "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. THEY WILL CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH 19 and will turn him over to the Gentiles TO BE MOCKED and FLOGGED and CRUCIFIED. On the third day HE WILL BE RAISED TO LIFE!"

Matthew 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over TO BE CRUCIFIED."

Matthew 26:12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it TO PREPARE ME FOR BURIAL. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Matthew 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is MY BLOOD of the covenant, WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

Luke 9:22 And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and HE MUST BE KILLED and on the third day be RAISED TO LIFE."

Luke 18:31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, FLOG HIM and KILL HIM. 33 On the third day HE WILL RAISE AGAIN."

Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Luke 24:18One of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" 19And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20and how the chief priests and our rulers DELIVERED HIM TO THE SENTENCE OF DEATH, AND CRUCIFIED HIM … 25And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26"WAS IT NOT NECESSART FOR THE CHRIST TO SUFFER THESE THINGS and to enter into His glory?"

Luke 24: 38And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39"SEE MY HANDS AND MY FEET, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Luke 24: 44Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, "Thus it is written, THAT THE CHRIST WOULD SUFFER AND RISE FROM THE DEAD THE THIRD DAY.

Revelation 1:17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; AND I WAS DEAD, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.


I wonder how many verses Muslims will be able to find WHERE YESHUA SPEAKS that deny that He ever died on the cross, since the amount is claimed to be overwhelming. AND ONLY YESHUA SPEAKING WILL COUNT. Because, notice the default Muslim double standards: When they want us to prove something from the NT, they will brush aside any narration from the disciples and demand us to quote only the words of Yeshua. But when they want to prove stuff from the NT, then will take any verse, irrespective of who the speaker is. We will NOT play along anymore.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS: Show us some verses where Yeshua says that He won't die. Only verses where Yeshua speaks. So Hebrews doesn't count since that isn't Yeshua speaking. That is "just" an apostle speaking.

This aught to be fun!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Readers, please feel free to post in the comments some prime examples of this Muslim methodology that you may have seen.

Oh this happens to me all the time in the M/C dialogue room on Paltalk. Once, a Muslim admin challenged any Christian to provide a particular verse from the gospels. So I provided a verse, which was a narration from the author. Then the admin came on the mic and said “that is just John speaking, those aren’t the words of Jesus. Give me the words of Jesus. “ So I went on to quote John 17:10 where it says that “All that is Mine is Yours and all that is Yours is Mine”. And I got dotted (for those who don’t know: a red dot is when you are prevented to speak on the mic by the admin) and then the admin took the mic and said “that is just John CLAIMING that Jesus said that. Give me the original words of Jesus.”

I was astonished and completely taken aback. And you would think that it was just this admin. A few weeks ago I went into the room again and was challenged by another admin to produce a verse that said such-and-such. That was a few minutes before Keith had his debate with Sami. I provided the verse, got dotted and the admin said “that is just the author CLAIMING that Jesus said that, so it doesn’t count”. I could not have made it up myself if I had the opportunity to pin something on Muslims.

Or how about Muslims quoting verses which are actually narrations from the authors themselves and not the words of Yeshua, only to do a 180 when you do the same thing? I’ve had my share of those. A Muslim was claiming that Yeshua was a Muslim and I challenged him to provide the proof. So he came up with Matthew 26:39 where Matthew (!), NOT Yeshua, was saying “and He went a little further and fell on His face and prayed…”. And he got all excited about the verse saying that this proves that Yeshua was a Muslim, since He prayed like a Muslim. And then he challenged me to provide the proof that Yeshua was supposed to die for our sins. The fact that Muslims ask this shows that they have no interest whatsoever to read the Gospels for what they are. But in any case, I then quoted Matthew 16:21 where Matthew narrates “and from that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day”. When I did that the admin got on the mic and said “that is just Matthew. Who is Matthew? That is not Jesus speaking, give me the words of Jesus!” I was like “WHAT!?” You have just quoted MATTHEW’S NARRATION a minute ago to prove that Yeshua was a Muslim.

How about an example from Sami? We were debating 1 John 2:22 where it clearly says that anyone who denies the Father and the Son of God is the antichrist. The verse goes “ Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son”. Sami claimed that this doesn’t say “Son of God” so therefore we cant draw the conclusion that the verse says that denying that Yeshua is the Son of God is denying the Father. But that is just begging the question. The verse speaks about the Father and the Son. Evidently, when John speaks of “the Son” in reference to “the Father” he means nothing other than “the Son of the Father/God”. Yet Sami, because those specific phrase “Son of God” isn’t there, he tries to dismiss the clear meaning of the verse. Now check this out. Sami uses this epistle every time he debates the prophethood of Muhammad. He always goes to 1 John 4:2 and claims that the verse says that “whoever says that Jesus is the Christ, is from God”. But we can nitpick as well and say the verse says no such thing! The verse says “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” But Sami isn’t nitpicking when it comes to this verse, is he? He makes a verse say something that it doesn’t say at all, but tries to act smart when it comes to the verse that clearly condemns his religion to the religion of the antichrist by the same author that he runs to, to be able to try prove that his prophet is a true prophet.

And I can go on like this for a while, but you get the point. But I will save the rest of the Muslim inconsistency for my audio rebuttals to Sami’s arguments against the Yeshua of the New Testament.

Nakdimon

Unknown said...

William Lane Craig recently debated Shabir Ally on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. The engagement took place in McGill University.

Was this event recorded? If so, is it available online?

DAN12345 said...

I think it is good to note that the writer of the quran(Muhammad or some Jews around muhammad) have borrowed nearly every story from the quran from somewhere.The arab stories of old,judaism,christianity,zoroastrianism and many more.Now for the crucifiction denial,this was first said by the fake persian prophet Mani who is the founder of Manicheism,who considered himself the comforter and the last of the prophets(and the greatest).Mani was crucified in 276 AD,many years before islam even started,again this man never met jesus never knew his followers never had real understanding of christianity.So another source islam copied from is Manicheism.But the only sura from the quran which talks about this is SURA 4:157"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure."Now lets break down this verse first it has the jews saying surely we killed the messiah(jews dont consider him the messiah 1)messenger of allah(they dont consider him a messenger 2)and they did not kill him or crucify him(again they the jews did not kill him or crucify him as it was done by the romans not the jews)but it appeared to them so(so it appeared to the jews they killed him but they didnt as it was the romans and who differs to this is full of doubts as certainly the romans killed him).So this doesnt say he did die on the cross does it?No it is saying the jews didnt kill him,not that he wasnt killed.Then the next sura 4:158 reads"Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise."Yes this is true God took him up to himself and God is Jesus.Read what jesus said about his own death John 10:17 “Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” SO JESUS LAYED DOWN HIS LIFE AND TOOK IT AGAIN AS HE IS GOD NOBODY TOOK IT FROM HIM,HE HAD THE POWER TO LAY IT DOWN AND TAKE IT AGAIN! WHO ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS WORLD HAS HAD THE POWER TO DO THIS?ANY ANSWER NO ONLY GOD CAN DO THIS! it is time for the muslims to start to understand truth instead of them being guilty of what the quran says the jews were doing following CONJECTURE!

Michelle Qureshi said...

Nakdimon--

Thanks for that post. It's good to have that stuff in writing so that we can all see the inconsistency required of Muslim apologists if they are to try and defend Islam.

-Nabeel

Fernando said...

Doctor Nabeel saide: «Osama has bombarded David's and my email accounts»...

I juste cannot eben imagine whatt he has been saying...

Here is another priceless pearl from a muslimm apollogist here in the countrie where I leave nowadays:

We were debatting iff Muhammad was a true profett since he did note gabe any proof of thatt during his liffe. Then he came with this quote of Zechariah 8:6 to say that if eben the Bible's God is anawhere of the future («Yahweh Sabaoth says this: If this seems a miracle to the remnant of this people (in those days), will it seem one to me?») no wonder Muhammad also did not had to knew itt...

does anyone understand what he just saide? I was shocked... ignorance? bad intention? bothe?

Anonymous said...

I have found the same when it comes to Jesus as the Son of God they tru to compare it saying God calls all of us Son's of God while this is true in some cases it doesnt account for other Cases.

The fact is muslims have to do such bad scholarship in order to try to prove the quran. I would give Osama this advice if you want others to take you seriouse as a scholar please get the Bible versions on your page right. I see some say NLT when it is NIV and some say NIV when it is NLT. I cannot take you seriouse if you make such simple careless mistakes and have pointed this out to many muslims who I now know agree with me on your bad scholarship it proves you dont care enough to double check your source on such a simple thing why should you be trusted on the bigger issues?

Anonymous said...

Royal Son,
"don't read 2 verses later" is a major part in muslim methodology.

Argument: "Wow, the universe was created from smoke. Scientific miracle!"
Response: "Stars are not missiles to shoot at demons. The earth isn't flat. The moon isn't closer to the earth than stars. Mountains are not pegs [continue as you please]"

The rebuttal to this depends on the apologist. The variety ranges from "filthy liar" to "desperate" and "making stuff up".

Stephanie said...

It's getting rather old to see such inconsistencies in these argumentative tactics. Either Muslims are attacking the Bible (pointing out its supposed "perverted nature," inconsistencies, or what have you), or they're saying that certain Scripture references (taken out of context) agree with the Quran. Last I checked, you can't use both tactics without directly contradicting yourself! But this is exactly what's happening. Choose one or the other, not both.

Anonymous said...

Well, the old debate can be watched here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rftools_de_christo_2

WLC should take the time and talk about inconsistency more often by the way.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I hope James White will discuss the debate soon on the DL.
I could do large parts of WLC's performances myselv by heart but a commentary might motivate me to watch it.

Bfoali said...

To Semparus Pempros.
It Was A Joke. Umm I Am Sorry I Thought You Knew About The Org. And Com. Differne in Shamouns Site And Abudllahs Site.
Im Sorry To Hear About Your Computer. Every Computer I Use To Visit AC Lets Me Visit It Without Any Warninngs. Intersting.

Royal Son said...

Here's a good one:

Nadir Ahmed "Just give me a little bit of evidence why we should even entertain the idea that Jesus was crucified"

The Christian gives non_christian sources Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Thallus, demonstrates the principle of embarrassment, the principle of disinterested sources, and explains the logical flaws in both the substitution theory and swoon theory which muslims believe.

Nadir Ahmed "Ok, so we are still waiting. Just give me a little bit of evidence why we should even entertain the idea that Jesus was crucified"

Jayman said...

If it's of interest to anyone, I've written a rather detailed refutation of Ahmed Deedat's book Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction. Here are my quick thoughts on his book:

1) As Royal Son states, his interpretation of the Bible is terrible.

2) There are places where he seems to create his own narrative and lay it on top of the biblical narrative. For example, he thinks that Jesus and the disciples were in a defensive formation in a courtyard in Gethsemane to meet the arresting party.

3) He depicts Jesus as a wise jihadist but anyone with knowledge of history can see that Deedat's Jesus would be a buffoon. For example, he wants us to believe that Jesus intended to wage a rebellion with twelve men and two swords.

4) He has no problem insulting the biblical Jesus, the Twelve, or Christians. This makes his claims about Muslim superiority when it comes to morality laughable.

5) Deedat appears to contradict himself. On the one hand he says Jesus wanted to set up an earthly kingdom but on the other hand he admits that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.

6) He cited Jim Bishop's The Day Christ Died as giving the dimensions of Christ's tomb. That book is historical fiction.

7) I'm pretty sure Deedat knew his arguments were wrong and that he simply did not care if he deceived his audience. For example, he quotes Matthew 27:62-65 but places ellipses in just the right places to conceal the fact that the Jews knew Jesus was dead.

8) Deedat appears unaware that (most) Christians believe in a physical resurrection. He cites the resurrection appearances as proof that Jesus was alive but not resurrected (aren't resurrected people alive?).

Jay44 said...

Ibn said:

"William Lane Craig recently debated Shabir Ally on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. The engagement took place in McGill University.

Was this event recorded? If so, is it available online?"


Hi Ibn, yes the event was recorded and is already available online to view here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfcyDby5Yjg

BTW, I maintain and track all of William Lane Craig's debates at the following site:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/rfforum/show_single_post?pid=26017286&postcount=1

If you want to keep up to date on his debates and when his latest debates become available, visit that page every now and then.

Anthony Rogers said...

Bfoali: I am sorry to hear about your computer. Every Computer I Use To Visit AC Lets Me Visit It Without Any Warninngs. Intersting.

Interesting for sure. Are you suggesting that Osama's site discriminates between Muslims and non-Muslims? I am not the only one who has had that problem when trying to go to his site. Since many Christsians here have already testified that they encounter just such a problem, and since you have said you don't experience that problem, can you point me to any Muslims who are having that problem? Or should I assume that only Christians do? Is there a special mailing list that one gets on to know what websites are to be avoided so that they can have the special experience of not running into viruses when visiting Muslim websites?

Royal Son said...

Hi Jayman, I've been writing about the same book here. It'd be interesting to compare notes.

Jesus' mentioning the legions of angels in matthew 26:53 alone is enough to destroy Deedat's Jihad theory.

Nakdimon said...

hey guys, is there any recording of any Deedat-Gilchrist debate? If yeah, where can I find them?

Very interested. Heard that Deedat got embarrassed by Gilchrist.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Deedat got very much smoked when he debated Josh Mcdowell, despite the fact that McDowell did not exceed in his use of polemics.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Ibn,

The Debate was recorded, the brothers here in London have access to copy from Shabir, I believe Nazam44 will upload it shortly although I am not sure.

From what I have heard WLC and Shabir both did a good job.

Also check out www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable on saturday they should upload an hour debate between shabir and tony costa.

Nakdimon said...

Oh my goodness. Shabir quotes all these scholars and still comes with the lame “Luke has 11 disciples and John has 10 disciples, because Thomas wasn’t there in the first appearance as Luke has it.”

It is obvious to ANYONE that reads this that Luke is contracting all the appearances into one. Luke doesn’t give us any details, instead, he just gives us the bottom line and basically said “this is what it all boils down to. The Lord met with the disciples and rebuked them for their unbelief, told them what to do and was taken up into heaven”. He keeps it as short as possible. Maybe it’s time to make a video about these non-objections.

Nakdimon

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

David or Quershi

Is is possible to link this website

http://theonlyway.org.uk/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

to the blog

It is a Christian website dealing with Muslims, which includes episodes from Christian television programs to Christians and Muslims in Urdu language.

To everyone's information:

These Christian Urdu programs can be seen every Wednesday 20:00 to 21:00 on glory TV

http://www.glorytv.co.uk

Christians and Muslim are allowed to phone in and ask questions.

Unknown said...

Thank you Christianjr4.

Nazam said...

Christianjr4,

The debate was uploaded by my friend Khalid Jan.

Feel free to copy the debate and upload it onto your channel as there's no copyright.

Nakdimon said...

Hello Nazam,

It seems that it only goes up until video 9 out of 19. I couldnt find the rest of the parts. Is that correct or am I mistaken?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Man, I just got listening to the debate between Mike Licona and Ali Ataie about the Resurrection. Man, it says a lot that Ali couldn’t stay on topic. It was quite embarrassing to see Ataie debating a historian and then quoting from ancient records trying to undermine the historical presentation of Licona.

Jay44 said...

Thanks Nazam

I was thinking before of asking your friend if I could upload the debate to my channel but didn't know if I would be allowed too. I'll probably upload it a bit later when I have the time.

I just learned that Dr. Craig's website (reasonablefaith.org) now has the full debate available there. The YouTube link I gave before doesn't yet have all the parts up, so go to Craig's site to see the full version.

Anonymous said...

The debate can be found here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=audio_visuals#debates

Anonymous said...

I'm watching the debate right now and it seems to me that Craig made a mistake at the beginning of his first rebuttal. He said that he would defend 5 historical facts and didn't list the death by crucifixion (it's not hard to tell why), but it's a minor technical mistake.

But I think Craig did a great job and Shabir really was unable to get around the brutal reality that JESUS DIED!

Also, I think he made an excellent performance exposing the theological flaw in the islamic position. Looks like he really did his homework here. Last time, it seems like he was on the defense. This time, he nailed Shabir on "Your theory contradicts the Quran, checkmate!".

Great job Bill.

Someone should really mail this debate to James White. I would love to hear his thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, I think Craig's rebuttal to Shabir's argument "The romans crucified him" deserves a post on this blog. Could someone post this?

By the way, it seems pretty ironic that Shabir was defending a passage that claims "If you don't believe this, you follow conjecture", while WLC was able about a dozen sources and Shabir was speculating what happened.

I think this is priceless.

Royal Son said...

Matthew, I haven't had the chance to watch the debate yet. Did Dr. Craig approach the topic from an evidentialist or presuppositional point of view?

It looks like he's going to be debating Christopher Hitchens on April 4th. That's just around the corner.

Dr. Craig has done so much for the Lord's work. Although I would prefer if he took a presuppositional approach to his debates, I still highly respect him. He is the consummate debater with loads of experience and a wealth of knowledge. Most importantly, he has the right kind of spirit. A tremendous gift to the Body of Christ.

Jay44 said...

Alright, I just got done listening to the debate as well. There are a few points that I think deserve to be highlighted.

First, as much as I respect shabir for his knowledge, his respectfullness and skill as an articulate debater, I sometimes find him to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous in many of the remarks he makes and how he presents them. Before, when I first heard their previous debate in 2002 on the same topic I knew virtually nothing about New Testament studies and scholarship on the subject. Since then I've come along way. For example, here's a few points that Shabir did that I thought was disingenuous on his part.

1) He presented at one time in the debate as if the majority of scholars do not hold to those 5 facts that Craig mentioned. Given the fact that Shabir is well versed in NT scholarship he must know this is false. Why else would he publish literature on the topic agreeing to those facts if this weren't the case? It would be much easier as a Muslim to deny those facts then affirm them all if indeed most scholars did not hold to each of them.

2)He presented Robert Gundry at one point as disagreeing with Dr. Craig over the facts. In their previous debate in 2002 Dr. Craig correctly pointed out that Shabir Ally took Gundry out of context but on this time around didn't mention anything about it (presumably to stay focused on the topic). Having since bought that book where Gundry makes the comment I can tell you that Shabir Ally did indeed again take Gundry out of context. I can only presume it was deliberate since Craig already pointed this out last time.

3) He mentioned Michael Grant (the secular historian) as denying the Resurrection and presented it as if Craig was choosing selectively his scholars and not the mainstream. But obviously Grant denies the Resurrection, since he doesn't believe miracles can occur. Shabir Ally is, not surprisingly, being inconsistent (sound familiar) because if he were to accept such historians and their methodology, he would have to rule out the miracles stated in the Quran since those very same historians would deny them as well. Shabir Ally also did the same thing with Gerd Ludemann on the appearances.

5) Denied multiple independent attestation of the appearances which he should know from Raymond Brown and others that they are multiply attested. He did this somewhat with Markan priority as well

I could go on with other problems with his representation of NT scholarship, not to mention his own Islamic theory of what happened (I think Craig sufficiently dealt with that) but I'll just leave it at that. I assumed Ally knew all of these things well, unless I'm wrong and he doesn't. If that's the case then I can't put any fault on him, but since he comes across as being widely read on the subject (ie. he's read Brown, Gundry, Ludemann, Maier etc) I can only assume he does know, but intentionally misrepresents things when it suits him to do so.

Jayman said...

Royal Son, feel free to use my writings in your own rebuttal to Deedat. If you think I missed anything as you're working through the book I would appreciate a comment on my blog so that I can improve the argument.

Nazam said...

Hello Nakidimon,

I think he will upload the rest sometime soon. I think he had some technical problems. I have also a personal copy of the debate and will also eventually upload it onto my account.

Christianjr4, please feel free to copy any of my other videos as their's no copyright on them to the best of my knowledge. I went onto your website and was impress with the list of debates that you have of Craig, I did not know that he debated Robert M Price. I am also looking forward to seeing the recordings and reading the reviews of his debates with Richard Carrier.

Anonymous said...

Matthew, I haven't had the chance to watch the debate yet. Did Dr. Craig approach the topic from an evidentialist or presuppositional point of view?

He presented his 5 facts (crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, belief in the resurrection), established them (Shabir agreed with all of them!!) and argued that the resurrection explains them best (he also argued that Shabir's explanations have serious theological implications and I didn't feel like he ever got a rebuttal to this).

He said in his opening statement that he would not defend inerrancy and Shabir mainly tried to attack inerrancy.
I was disappointed by Shabir's performance, I think even I could do better.

WLC debated Carrier yesterday, which is be the really interesting debate.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I agree Matthew

Shabir Ally (who I believe is the best islamic debater) tends to move from a topic on the one side of the spectrum to the other; while Christians tend to stay on the topic.

This is incredibly evident in Shabir Ally's debate with e.g. Sam Shamoun (the Bible and the Qur'an) and in his debate with Morris (on Islam and pre-islamic pagan religions).

This is unfortunately a very muslim way of debating. In the muslim mind this shows that the muslim won by asking more questions and scoring the most points even though the actual topic was virtually avoided, which differs with the Christian mindset, in which the focus on the topic is the major importance.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I guess also this is what Paul kind of refers to when he says that he is a Jew to Jew and Gentile to Gentile. I am sure Paul here refers mainly of not offending the Jews in their rituals and refraining from forcing Jewish customs upon Gentiles. But the same thing may go for debating.

If we are to impact the Muslims with our debating we probably need to apply their approach, we need to focus on points, on silencing, exposing and debunking our opponent, but then again we see what happens. They mute us in the debates (as we saw Sami and his team do to one of our brothers), accuse of changing topic, etc.

Nazam said...

Hello Christianjr4,

Unfortunetly I do not have time to give my full review of my first impression of the debate, so I'll just add my 50 cents to some of the points you highlighted.

It is actually false that Ally during the debate agreed to all 5 facts of Criag's, although Craig kept on repeating himself. Ally even contested that Criag should refer to them as 5 facts but instead as contentions.

Ally for the debates sake agreed to the Empty tomb hypothesis but rejected some of the other facts. Thus, it did not follow for Craig to say he accepted all 5 facts as a fact. Even the Empty tomb contention Ally disagreed with Criag's conclusion.

The purpose of Ally mentioning Michael Grant, who was cited first by Criag, was to correct the false impression that you got from Criag that majority of scholars accept all five contentions. Some scholars might accept some of the contentions but at the same time not hold to others. Criag by citing Grant gave the possible impression that Grant accepted all five contentions.

Anonymous said...

Nazam,
I am pretty sure that Michael Grant agrees with all 5 facts, while he does not hold the belief in the resurrection himself.

He's often cited as an atheist/agnostic who argues that historians can't deny the empty tomb. It would be foolish if he woud deny anything else.

Lothair Of Lorraine said...

I have written a few responses to Osama, and they have been posted on answering-islam. Osama can only be described as 'a low hanging fruit'. Or, maybe just 'a fruit'. Just depends on what I want the verse to say...lol...

Nazam said...

Matthew,

I'll have to watch the debate again but from what I remember from the debate Michael Grant dose not accept Craig's 5th Contention. Ally mention this to Craig during the debate and Criag didn't seem to disagree.

I also have the book, Jesus, an historian reviews of the Gospels by Michael Grant and well in my own time check to see if he accepts all 5 points.

Thanks.

Anthony Rogers said...

Nazam said: "I'll have to watch the debate again but from what I remember from the debate Michael Grant dose not accept Craig's 5th Contention....I also have the book, Jesus, an historian reviews of the Gospels by Michael Grant and well in my own time check to see...."

On the empty tomb, try page 176.

Anonymous said...

I think it's funny when someone who believes that Jesus didn't rise from the calls something a contention, but that's another story.

What exactly was Craig's point #5? The disciples came to believe in the bodily resurrection?

Nazam said...

Semper Paratus,
Thank you for the page referance.

Matthew,
Come to think of it I think it might have been point 4 and not point 5 but I have to watch the debate again to find out. Unfortunelty I'm very behind my essay work.

Christianjr4,

It just occur to me about Craig's theological ojection to Ally's rescue theory comes to late, was a bit of a straw man made by him. As Ally was not defending in this particular debate an conspiracy or a plot to rescue Jesus. But merely, Pilate and his cohorts went through the motion of crucifing Jesus without giving it their one hunded and ten percent. Because it was already well known that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus but was force into it by the enemies. Jesus escapes death without the enemies relizing it and is handed over to his disciples by Pilate to be buried. But instead of the disciples buring Jesus five feet underground, Jesus is put inside a tomb and is next bodyly assume into heaven.

Claude Lafrance said...

The Quran says that Jesus did not have been crucified but it says that he was elevated to Heaven. If he did not die before being elevated he must have been elevated after the last Scene. So all his disciples knew he was gone because they had been witnesses. Why then, after they saw their master elevated in Heaven in all his glory, they would begin to tell everyone he has been crucified ? Crucifixion was an ignominy. This thought certainly did not come to their mind. Why defame their Lord, by spreading such false report on him. Also, Jerusalem was not a so big city. Everyone knew what was going on. They certainly knew who was crucified or not. People would have laught at Jesus’s disciples if he had not been really crucified.

Somebody crucified in the place of Jesus ? Just think about it with your imagination. Who would have been idiot enough to be deceived. A sosie of Jesus just there at the right time, who speaks like Jesus, who answers like Jesus who doesn’t protest for being falsely identified with Jesus, who does not stongly protest for being injustly crucified ,who has no relatives, and who does not tell Mary he is not his son etc etc. Silly !
Also, Jesus would not have let such a terrible injustice being made to an innocent man. Even if that man was a criminal as Muslims pretends. For being able to imagine this, Muslims proves they have no moral values. We must not punish someone for a crime he did not commit. You don’t know that ? Christians knows.

This is the same thing for Muslims. If Muhammad was not a murderer and a robber they would not have say so. Why defame their prophet ? If Muhammad was not a murderer and a cruel man, why Muslims said so ? Because it is true. Read hadiths and Sira al rassoul.

Claude Lafrance said...

The Quran says that Jesus did not have been crucified but it says that he was elevated to Heaven. If he did not die before being elevated he must have been elevated after the last Scene. So all his disciples knew he was gone because they had been witnesses. Why then, after they saw their master elevated in Heaven in all his glory, they would begin to tell everyone he has been crucified ? Crucifixion was an ignominy. This thought certainly did not come to their mind. Why defame their Lord, by spreading such false report on him. Also, Jerusalem was not a so big city. Everyone knew what was going on. They certainly knew who was crucified or not. People would have laught at Jesus’s disciples if he had not been really crucified.

Somebody crucified in the place of Jesus ? Just think about it with your imagination. Who would have been idiot enough to be deceived. A sosie of Jesus just there at the right time, who speaks like Jesus, who answers like Jesus who doesn’t protest for being falsely identified with Jesus, who does not stongly protest for being injustly crucified ,who has no relatives, and who does not tell Mary he is not his son etc etc. Silly !
Also, Jesus would not have let such a terrible injustice being made to an innocent man. Even if that man was a criminal as Muslims pretends. For being able to imagine this, Muslims proves they have no moral values. We must not punish someone for a crime he did not commit. You don’t know that ? Christians knows.

This is the same thing for Muslims. If Muhammad was not a murderer and a robber they would not have say so. Why defame their prophet ? If Muhammad was not a murderer and a cruel man, why Muslims said so ? Because it is true. Read hadiths and Sira al rassoul.

Fernando said...

Claude L: greatt postt: good pointes and well preesented... and in stereo! greatt! thanks!

Claude Lafrance said...

I am very sorry for this duo.

Fernando, it was just a little reality check, just a little bit of good sense, the same old good sense which is lacking to Muslims when they can’t see the violent, archaic, fearfull essence of their religion, the narcissism and the cruelness of their false Prophet and the false god he forged for his own power.

Our Jesus did not do that ? Isn’t it, Fernando ? He did not killed anybody, robbed anybody, lapidated any women, ordered any murder. He just said “Blessed are the mercyfull, blessed are the clean of heart, blessed at the peacemakers, blessed those who suffer persecution etc etc. He said : “Wichever of you is free from sin shall cast the first stone to her.” This has nothing to do with Irak or Afghanistan, hey ? This is spirituality, this is religion.

Our Jesus did not say :”Kill Muslims, those sons of pigs and monkies” Our God-Father did not say :” I will send it down unto you (a table set with viands !!!!) : but if any of you after that resists faitht, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the people.” Q 5 : 115 He never said such debasing things. Who can say such things ? Surely not a Prophet of God nor God Himself. So, who ?

I spare you the ten pages which could follow.

Claude Lafrance said...

I am very sorry for this duo.

Fernando, it was just a little reality check, just a little bit of good sense, the same old good sense which is lacking to Muslims when they can’t see the violent, archaic, fearfull essence of their religion, the narcissism and the cruelness of their false Prophet and the false god he forged for his own power.

Our Jesus did not do that ? Isn’t it, Fernando ? He did not killed anybody, robbed anybody, lapidated any women, ordered any murder. He just said “Blessed are the mercyfull, blessed are the clean of heart, blessed at the peacemakers, blessed those who suffer persecution etc etc. He said : “Wichever of you is free from sin shall cast the first stone to her.” This has nothing to do with Irak or Afghanistan, hey ? This is spirituality, this is religion.

Our Jesus did not say :”Kill Muslims, those sons of pigs and monkies” Our God-Father did not say :” I will send it down unto you (a table set with viands !!!!) : but if any of you after that resists faitht, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the people.” Q 5 : 115 He never said such debasing things. Who can say such things ? Surely not a Prophet of God nor God Himself. So, who ?

I spare you the ten pages which could follow.

Ho-Logos said...

//Muslim:
1 - Determine what you'd like the text to say
2 - Find verses that support your view, even if they are ambiguous
3 - Make your conclusion as if those were the only relevant verses
4 - If need be, deny the legitimacy of all verses that contradict your point of view, especially the clear ones.//

Well said!

Royal Son said...

Islam and the Cross – Part Ten

Dear brothers and sisters,
This particular section will address an issue regarding Christ’s Kingdom. Although it is certainly not the focal point of the series of these messages, it is nevertheless profitable for us to consider the subject because Deedat brings up verses but only reports them in part to support His arguments. It is critical to see these verses in their totality and the surrounding issues that they imply because doing so will demonstrate the selectiveness and deception on Deedat’s part by obscuring such facts. For the moment however, we shall resume our discussion from where we left off.
In part nine, it seemed we were going to touch upon the subject of the trial itself, but we noted that Ahmed Deedat was continuing to go off-track, discussing Mohammed being listed as the most influential person of history among other things. Ahmed Deedat turns back to the topic at hand and mentions the political evils of the men who were determined to have Jesus executed.

“PREDETERMINED JUDGEMENT

The fate of Jesus (pbuh) was already sealed. Caiphas the High Priest, at the head of the Sanhedrin (a Religious Board of Jewish Deputies), was a man who would have recused himself in any civilised Court-of-Law, because of his prejudice against the defendant. He had already condemned Jesus to death without any hearing. He had recommended to his Council, even before the case that:-

"… it is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and the whole nation perish not." (HOLY BIBLE) John 11:50”

It comes as no surprise to us to hear that Jesus was prejudged by evil men. We notice by following the text that Caiaphas had prophesied concerned the death of Jesus as mentioned in the next few verses:

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,
52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Deedat continues:

“Jesus had to be liquidated! There was no question of right or wrong; Justice or injustice; it was "EXPEDIENT"! The trial was a farce. By hook or by crook they would have Jesus convicted and done away with. In the middle of the night, what we might call at 2 o'clock in the morning, the Jews had mustered up false witnesses to testify against Jesus. A trial, past midnight was against Jewish practice; but who cares? Despite sympathetic and encouraging prosecutors and jurors, the false witnesses could not tally in their evidences.

It was too much for Jesus. He could not hold his peace. He had to remonstrate. He made a telling plea in his own defence, saying:
"... I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always gather; and in secret have 1 said nothing." (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:20”

It is certainly true that Jesus did not deserve the treatment he received from the Jews. It comes as no surprise to Christians that the trial was a farce, since Pilate who was in the position of judgement, personally found nothing to convict Jesus with, and set a murderer free in His place. Yes, Jesus was the perfect, sinless, unblemished lamb, and as such was the supreme candidate to save God’s people from their sins.

”In essence, he said that he expounded no secret or esoteric doctrines. He did not teach anything in private which he would not be prepared to proclaim in public. In which case, the Jews would have been able to line up an army of witnesses to testify against him. But what a farce!”

Well, all I can say in response to this is that Jesus had an entire crowd of people who wanted Him dead, shouting “Crucify Him!”, and again, I agree that it was a complete mistrial. This doesn’t prove anything against the crucifixion however, it simply strengthens the testimony of Jesus being the unblemished lamb. Deedat continues:

“The Jews could not get even two to agree1 in their allegations! "But neither did their
witness agree together" - (Mark 14:59). His argument was so potent that an officer
standing by was provoked to strike him in silence. Did that intimidate Jesus? No! Instead, he
protested further:

". . . if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why
smitest thou me?"

The victim was slipping out from between their fingers. It was now or never. Legally they
could not incriminate him. Direct intervention was necessary. The High Priest interjects with a
side thrust. Tell us then:

". . . Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am . . ."(Mark 14:61-62)”

Indeed the testimonies against Jesus were false and contradictory. Now, what’s interesting are these verses here mentioned above by Deedat – Mark 14:61-62. I would like to post the entirety of those two verses as well as the two verses that come after it. Let us look therefore at Mark 14:61-64:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.
64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Conveniently, we see that Ahmed Deedat failed to give us the entirety of verse 62. This verse speaks of Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man sitting at the right Hand of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven. Deedat Attempted to condense it down to make it sound as though Jesus was accused of blasphemy simply for referring to Himself as the Christ or the Son of the blessed One. Jesus was saying much more than that, His powerful language is taken from the book of Daniel chapter 7 verses 13 and 14:

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. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

14 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.

Here we see that the Son of Man:
1. Has authority
2. Has glory
3. Has sovereign power
4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.
5. Has an eternal dominion that will never pass away
6. Has a Kingdom that will never be destroyed.

Let us examine these points one by one.

1. Authority

Matthew 28:18 – “Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” We note first the words “given to me”. Muslims will no doubt be quick to point out that this means that Jesus had no authority of His own. What they will fail to point out however is that this verse takes place after the resurrection. This is a point of great significance because we know that Jesus emptied Himself and took the form of a slave in His incarnation and earthly sojourn (Philippians 2:6-8). He put aside His divine prerogatives, but following His resurrection, He entered into glory, and took back His position of authority and power. (Philippians 2:9-11). As such, this verse is not saying simply that Jesus received authority from the Father as something that did not originally belong to Him, rather it is a restoration back to that position of authority following Christ’s resurrection.

Before we go on to point number 2, we must not so quickly gloss over the details regarding the authority Christ actually received. As mentioned above in Matthew 28:18, this was authority over all things in the heavens and in the earth. Does this sound like an ordinary man? Did any prophet ever have such authority? Was any prophet ever given such authority? Let’s answer this question by looking to what I think would be the three most powerful figures to bring to the case: Adam, Moses, and Mohammed. Now of course, Christians do not consider Adam to be a prophet (nor obviously Mohammed), but as Muslims do, we shall look to these three individuals. I have chosen these three in particular for a purpose, and we shall see why:

Adam: According to the Qur’an, Allah commanded the angels to worship Him. Surah 2:34 says – “And behold We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject Faith.” (YUSUF ALI)

The Muslim might say, “Jesus isn’t unique in having authority over heaven and earth. Here the angels are worshipping Adam, so Adam has the same kind of authority given to Him by Allah” The problems with this are too numerous to address, but let’s respond to two major problems here:

(1) Bowing down before anyone but Allah is Shirk. Thus Allah was actually commanding His angels to commit Shirk.

(2) Verse 36 of the Qur’an shows that Adam was thrown out of Paradise for his sin. This account is echoed in Surah 7:24. If Adam was to be thrown out of paradise, he certainly had no authority regarding paradise. Nor did he have authority over Satan who seduced he and his wife.

Moses: While Adam was denied the dominion of the heavenly paradise, Moses was denied the earthly Good Land. In Numbers 20:12 we read “But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them." If Adam and Moses were to have authority of the heavens and the earth, then they would have the authority to enter into paradise and the good land respectively, but this is not what we see.

Mohammed: Mohammed speaks of the authority of the heavens and earth. Does he say that this authority has been given to him? Let us see: Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believed in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." Mohammed here, rather than say that dominion of the heavens and the earth have been given to him, simply states that such dominion belongs to Allah. This thought is repeated in 5:120 – “Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is therein, and He is Able to do all things.” Again 24:42 – “And unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and unto Allah is the journeying.”

The muslim may interject, citing Surah 2:247 “Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah is All-Embracing, and He knoweth all things." Unfortunately for the muslim, this verse says nothing about authority over the heavens and the earth. Nor does it mention Mohammed’s name. In fact this particular verse is speaking of the authority of kingship of Saul whom Allah is said to have raised up as an authority over the Israelites. Being a king over the Israelites is obviously not equivalent to having all authority over the heavens and the earth.

It would be useful to point out two particular instances which demonstrate that Mohammed certainly did not have authority over the heavens and the earth and all therin:

“Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)... “(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660) We see here that rather than having all authority, Mohammed was a victim of black magic. He thought he was engaging in certain activities when he was in fact not doing so. Obviously someone or something had exercised some kind of authority over Mohammed to deceive him into thinking things that were untrue. We learn that it was in fact a Jew who used a comb. Yes, that’s right, a comb:

Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, "I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, "What is the ailment of this man?" The other replied, 'He has been bewitched" The first asked, 'Who has bewitched him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin Al-A'sam.' The first one asked, 'What material has he used?' The other replied, 'A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.' The first asked, 'Where is that?' The other replied, 'It is in the well of Dharwan.' " So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, "Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils." I asked, "Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?" He said, "No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people." Later on the well was filled up with earth.

It is safe to say that Mohammed was not given all authority over heaven and earth and all therein. Jesus Christ on the other hand did receive all authority, because He was whom He claimed to be: the divine Son of God, even God Himself manifest in the flesh. Such claims of course were vindicated through His being raised from the dead.

2. Glory

Isaiah 48:11 says “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.” We never see Mohammed claiming to have received glory from God. Because Jesus Christ is God, He is simply receiving back the glory which He had with the Father before the foundation of the world – John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”. We see no such words from Adam, Moses, David, Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Mohammed, or anyone. Jesus is unique here. With the verse from John 17:5, we also see the eternality of Jesus Christ, that is, that He existed prior to the very creation of the world.

3. Sovereign Power

Being under the authority of black magic already shows that Mohammed certainly did not have sovereign power. He never claimed having it, nor did any of the Lord’s servants. This again is something unique to Jesus. Adam also had no power over the evil one, Satan. As for Moses, He never claims sovereign power for Himself, nor does God ever give Him sovereign power. By contrast, we see that He attributes sovereignty to God alone:

Exo 23:17 -"Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord.”

Deut 3:24 - "O Sovereign Lord, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?”

Deut 9:26 – “I prayed to the Lord and said, "O Sovereign Lord, do not destroy your people, your own inheritance that you redeemed by your great power and brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.”

Exodus 34:23 – “Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.”



4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.


According to the Qur’an, no one should be worshipped, except Allah. Surah 3:64 says – “Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).”

As mentioned previously, Surah 2:34 seems to be stating that the angels worshipped Adam. This would pose a problem for Muslims because the command comes from Allah Himself. The only way that Muslims can preserve the integrity of Allah in this verse is to say that the command is merely to bow before Adam in the way of respect, and not worship. This being the case, it would show indeed that no man receives the worship of peoples of all nations and languages but the God-man, Jesus Christ.

5. Eternal Kingdom and Eternal Dominion

No one is described as having an eternal kingdom or dominion in the Bible or Qur’an except God:

Surah 2:107 - Do you not know that Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides Allah you have no guardian or helper?

Surah 3:189 - And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Allah has power over all things.

Surah 5:18 - And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

Surah 5:40 - Do you not know that Allah-- His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He chastises whom He pleases; and forgives whom He pleases and Allah has power over all things.

Surah 5:120 - Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is in them; and He has power over all things.

Sura 6:73 And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth with truth, and on the day He says: Be, it is. His word is the truth, and His is the kingdom on the day when the trumpet shall be blown; the Knower of the unseen and the seen; and He is the Wise, the Aware.

Sura 7:158 Say: O people! surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth there is no god but He; He brings to life and causes to die therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may walk in the right way.

Sura 9:116 – “Surely Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He brings to life and causes to die; and there is not for you besides Allah any Guardian or Helper.”

It must be mentioned that the Qur’an does speak of Allah giving a kingdom to those whom it pleases:

Surah 2:247 - And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, Knowing.

Surah 2:251 - So they put them to flight by Allah's permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased. And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures.

Surah 2:258 - Have you not considered him (Namrud) who disputed with Ibrahim about his Lord, because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Ibrahim said: My Lord is He who gives life and causes to die, he said: I give life and cause death. Ibrahim said: So surely Allah causes the sun to rise from the east, then make it rise from the west; thus he who disbelieved was confounded; and Allah does not guide aright the unjust people.

Surah 3:26 Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thine hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things.

However, all of these verses are talking about an earthly Kingdom. We know that the age of the kings (earthly) ended when Israel was taken into captivity into Babylon. The kingship held by Saul,David, and Solomon for example, were of an earthly kingdom. Not only so, but they did not have an eternal kingdom, We know this by the following verses:

Saul:

1 Samuel 13:1 – “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.”

David

2 Samuel 5:4 – “David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.”

1 Chronicles 18:14 – “David reigned over all Israel, doing what was just and right for all his people.”

Solomon:

1 Kings 10:23 – “King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.”

King Cyrus

Interestingly, a gentile king is said to have received kingship over all the earth: This was King Cyrus of Persia, but again, this was temporary and earthly:

Ezra 1:2 – “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah.”

Indeed, the Persian empire had tremendous power, but We know that the Persian Empire lost its control over all the kingdoms of the earth, especially at the hands of Alexander the great. One only has to look at the world today and observe that no such world-wide Persian empire exists. There is but the modern day country of Iran.

Jesus Christ

By contrast, we see from the aforementioned verses in Daniel 7:13-14, that Jesus has an eternal kingdom, and everlasting dominion that would not pass away. Let us look at some further verses speaking of this kingdom:

John 18:36 – “Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Rev 11:15 – “The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."

Luke 1:32-33 – “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Notice in John 18:36, that Jesus gives the reason not to fight to prevent Jesus’ arrest – Because His kingdom was not of the world. In other words, a heavenly Kingdom. This again serves to refute Ahmed Deedat’s theory that Jesus wanted to start a Jihad. We also see that Christ’s kingdom is not merely earthly. Both Luke 1:32-33 and Revelation 11:15 testify to the eternality of this kingdom, something that none of the earthly kings enjoyed. Even Cyrus the great’s kingdom of all the earth was defeated.

It becomes obvious to the Christian reader as to why Deedat would obscure the totality of Mark 14:61-62. We know that Christ is the Son of Man, with all authority, power, sovereignty, an eternal Kingdom and is to be worshipped by all people. As pointed out at the beginning of this particular section of our series, it has not been the original intention to focus on the subject of Christ’s Kingdom, or the inferences that such details bring, but I do believe it still constituted a helpful and insightful component to our discussion.

With this exalted view of Christ, we shall continue in the next part to see if Ahmed Deedat’s perspective on the charges of blasphemy are based upon sound reasoning, and consistent interpretation of scripture, or if it is simply another example of what happens when one is forced by his own theological presuppositions to strain the text of scripture. I hope this perhaps somewhat tangential discussion has nevertheless been an interesting and helpful one.

God bless you all,
aka Royal Son

Fernando said...

Royal Son: thankes bery much!!!

Royal Son said...

You're most welcome Brother Fernando :)

Soli Deo Gloria !

Royal Son said...

Islam and the cross - Part Eleven

Dear brothers and sisters,

In part ten of our series, we looked in depth at Mark 14:62, which was quoted by Ahmed Deedat in a very incomplete way. Again, his quotation was as follows: "… Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am . . . " (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:61-62.
We compared this with the verses in their fullness:
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:61-62
We also noted that these verses were quoting from the book of Daniel chapter 7, verses 13 and 14:
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. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

14 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.
As a result, it was concluded that Jesus claimed that He:
1. Has authority
2. Has glory
3. Has sovereign power
4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.
5. Has an eternal dominion that will never pass away
6. Has a Kingdom that will never be destroyed.
It was no wonder that Ahmed Deedat would deliberately conceal the entirety of the verses in Mark. With this exalted presentation Christ gave of Himself in view, we proceed further to address Deedat and his claims. He writes:
“1. It reminds one of the 5000 (so-called original) Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament of which "NO TWO ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES", say the Jehovah's Witnesses. The "cultists" are now claiming the discovery of a staggering 24 thousand Manuscripts; to which of course the same stricture will apply. See "Is the Bible God's Word?" for further information.”
Firstly, no Christian claims that any of the thousands of Greek manuscripts that are in our possession today are original.

Secondly, no original manuscripts of the Qur’an exist either.

Thirdly, as Bart Ehrman points out, the New Testament is the best attested book of Antiquity.

Fourthly, the 24,000 manuscripts include The Old Testament and New Testament in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, and other languages, all agreeing doctrinally on the items of the Christian faith.

Fifthly, the Quran states that the Torah had been preserved in Surah 32:23, which reads “We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.” (Yusuf Ali translation).

Sixthly, Qur’an calls upon people of the gospel (i.e. the Christians) to judge what Allah has revealed in Surah 5:46-47, which reads : “46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” (Yusuf Ali translation).

Seventhly, when Uthman burned Qur’ans, he either burned authentic ones or corrupt ones. If they were corrupted, then Ahmed Deedat’s argument is lost, because the Qur’an also had become corrupted. If on the other hand, Uthman burned genuine Qur’an’s, then it seems that he set a precedent for burning the Qur’an as an acceptable practice.

Eighthly, according to Aisha, a goat ate the surahs on stoning and suckling: “Narrated Aisha: "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were written on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."(References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13)”. Indeed, they do not appear in the Quran.

Ninthly, Abdullah ibn Umar, the son of the second Caliph, Umar ibn Kattab affirms the fact that the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved:
“It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524)”
Tenthly, the original Arabic manuscripts were void of diacritical markings, whereas the Arabic version of the Qur’an today does contain diacritical marks. This is to say, the originals did not contain vowels whereas the modern versions do. Thus the meaning of the originals is unknown. Let us use a simple English example:
D-n p-ts c-ts –n th- b-g
Here are some possible renderings:
Dan puts cats on the bag
Dan puts cats in the bag
Dan puts cots in the bag
Don puts cuts on the bag
Den puts cuts on the bug
Den puts cats on the bug
Dan pats cats on the bag
Dan puts cats in the bog
Den pets cats in the bag
This simple illustration shows how differently groups of words can be interpreted when the vowels are missing. The same ambiguity applies to the original Arabic manuscripts. The fact that the modern versions have rendered the ancient in a particular way does not necessarily mean that they are true.
There are indeed more points that could be made for the case of the Bible against the case for the Qur’an. Needless to say, it goes beyond the intended scope of this discussion, so we shall return back to the subject of the crucifixion of Jesus. Deedat writes:

“There was nothing blasphemous or treasonable in the simple avowal of Jesus (pbuh). "Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which meant the ANOINTED ONE or the APOINTED ONE. 1 Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God. We must divorce this notion from the paganised Christian doctrine of the incarnation, wherein God becomes man. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah, did not identify the Messiah with God. Indeed, the nature of Jewish monotheism wholely excludes such pagan connotations. "Son of God" is also another harmless expression in Jewish theology. God seems to have sons by the tons in the Jewish Bible. But if you are looking for trouble, you do not have to go far. You will find it round the corner. The High Priest was exultant. He felt that his rapier thrust had ripped open the defence of Jesus. To dramatise his contrived victory, he began renting his clothes.
"What need have we for any further witnesses? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." — (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:63-64”
There are a number of interesting claims made here by Deedat. They may be enumerated as follows:
1. Jesus did not commit blasphemy in His affirmation of being the Christ.
2. Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God.
3. Incarnation is a paganised Christian notion.
4. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah did not identify the Messiah with God.
5. Son of God is a harmless expression in Jewish theology.
6. God has sons by the tons in the Jewish bible.
Let us address these points one by one.
1. Jesus did not commit blasphemy in His affirmation of being the Christ.
I agree. Jesus certainly did not commit blasphemy. But on what grounds do we believe this? Christians believe that Jesus did not commit blasphemy because He was who He said He was. As pointed out previously, Ahmed Deedat neglected to mention the entirety of Mark 14:61-62, or even mention at all the verses these were drawing from – Daniel 7:13-14, wherein Jesus was claiming to be the Son of Man, having authotity, glory, power, an eternal kingdom, eternal dominion, and to be worshipped by people of all nations, tongues, etc. Is there anything in Deedat’s work that would even begin to suggest that he believed that these attributes all apply to Jesus? I would say absolutely not.
Deedat refers to Christ being the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning Anointed One. Anointed for What Ahmed Deedat? We never see this term being applied to Mohammed. Why not? This is something unique to Jesus. If we are to be consistent and allow all of the Messianic verses in the Old Testament to speak, we shall see why the Jews considered Jesus’ claims to be blasphemous.
2. Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God.
There are two approaches to this. Firstly we could look directly to the word Christ (Cristos in Greek) in the New Testament. Such passages from the gospels include:
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matthew 22:41-46 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 44 "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" 45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

This interesting passage shows that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation, and that David calls Him Lord (Psalms 110:1). Just a few verses later, we see that He has an eternal priesthood:
Psalms 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”
Matthew 23:10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

Luke 4:41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.
John 11:27 "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Secondly, we could examine the Old Testament passages concerning the Messiah. Although there are many passages we could examine regarding the Messiah, we shall not cover them here. The reason for this is that it is not disputed by Muslims that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Indeed, Ahmed Deedat refers to Jesus as Messiah in Crucifixion or Crucifiction, devoting an entire section under the title “Messiah sobs for His people” To quote Ahmed Deedat himself in his book - Christ in Islam, Deedat writes:

“The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub", "to massage", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian form, "Christ" seems
unique: befitting Jesus only.”
It is not necessary therefore to provide all of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament to establish this already agreed title for Jesus. If Muslims agree that Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed one, then they need to accept the Messianic prophecies that testify of Him. The question thus becomes, “What should we expect from this Messiah?” The bible answers this question very clearly:

DEITY
Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Psalms 2:12 “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.”
SUFFERING, CRUCIFIXION, RESURRECTION, ENTHRONEMENT, INTERCESSION

Psalms 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. 18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

3. Incarnation is a paganised Christian notion.
According to Isaiah 9:6, a prophecy long before the establishment of Christianity, this Messiah would be God and man. Thus, the incarnation of Christ recorded in the gospels of the New Testament is clearly not an invention of Christians. Isaiah 9:6 is also supported by Daniel 7:13-14, as already pointed out, the One with authority, glory, power, eternal dominion kingdom, and the object of worship of all nations.
4. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah did not identify the Messiah with God.
Peter (Matthew 16:16, 2 Peter 1:1), James (James 2:1), Andrew (Matthew 14:22,33,John 6:8-10), Paul (Ac 21:39,Phil 2:6), John(John 1:1), and Mary (Luke 1:47), were ALL Jews. There are too many more examples to note. The fact is that those who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, ALL worshipped Him and recognised Him as God. Those who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah ALL considered Him not to be God. Deedat’s sweeping statement that the Jewish expectation of a Messiah was not to identify Him as God is also refuted by the fact that the Wise men who found the Messiah, worshipped Him (Matthew 2:11). Obviously, they expected the Messiah to be God.
5. Son of God is a harmless expression in Jewish theology.
It is certainly true that the title Son of God is applied many times to people other than the Messiah. Let us first look at these examples:

NEPHILIM

Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful ; and they took wives for themselves, whomever * they chose.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward *, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

ANGELS

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.



ISRAEL

Exodus 4:22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

ADAM

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If the title Son of God is applied to many people other than Jesus, how can Christians claim that Jesus is literally a Son of God or that the title is applied in a unique way to Him?

First of all, the term literal can be misleading. When we use the title “Son” and apply it to Jesus, Muslims often think that we are referring to a situation whereby God the Father takes a partner (e.g Mary), and produces a Son through sexual intercourse. This is not what we mean.

Son denotes a relationship between the 1st and 2nd persons of the Divine Trinity. Jesus takes a role of submitting to the Father. All that the Son does, speaks, and wills, is through taking the Father as His source. The Son expresses the Father. The Son is a representation of the Father. This is altogether related to the role that Jesus takes. Eternally, Christ the Son has existed with the Father. Jesus says:

John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”

We also see a distinction between the Angels, and the Son where the Father says:

Hebrews 1:7-8 “And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.”

We also see a distinction between prophets, and God’s Son in the parable of the vine-dressers:
Matthew 21:33-42

"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey.
When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third.
Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way.
Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.'
So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
Thus Christians make a distinction between those mentioned in the bible as being Sons of God and Jesus Christ being the unique Son of God, because both Jesus and the Father teach us this very distinction. Again, it does not mean that Jesus only came into existence at a particular point in time, rather it denotes an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

6. God has sons by the tons in the Jewish bible.
As pointed out above. The distinction is made between sons in the common usage applying to men and angels, and in a particular way as found in, among other passages, Hebrews 1:7-8 and Matthew 21:33-42.
To conclude here, did Jesus commit blasphemy? Most certainly He did not. Why? Because He was indeed the very person He claimed to be. Ahmed Deedat wants to obscure the meaning and implications of the Messiah as shown in both the Old and New Testament, and he has to. There is no other way for Deedat or indeed any Muslim to remain a muslim and represent the text of the Bible fairly, consistently, and accurately.

God bless you all,
Royal Son.

IslamSINS said...

About a year ago, I heard some Arabic speakers discussing the term, "inni mutawaffika", as it is used in sura 3.55. They maintain that the verb indicates the present tense, not future tense. If this is so, then the koran would clearly state that Christ was going to die at the time the of His earthly incarnation as the God/Man, not on His return, as muslims are wont to proclaim.

3:55 "Ya Isaa, inni mutawaffiqa ilayya..." meaning "O Jesus I shall cause you to die and I will raise you to myself...", or "I am causing you to die and raising you to myself"

I'm an English-only dummy, so I leave it to the Arabic NON-Muslim speakers to help sort through the accuracy of the verb tense. No Muslims, please; I'm looking for clarification, not another layer of Islamic taqiyya.

Claude Lafrance said...

Islamsins,
You may find an answer here. Remember what Allah-Muhammad said : “If you are in doubt as to what We have revealed unto you, then ask those who have reading the Book from before you.” Q, 10:94 So you do well not to ask Muslims.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/tabari_on_jesus.htm

yakovski said...

Muslims frequently say Jesus didnt say He was the Son of God or that He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. I point them to John 3:16 where Jesus words in red quote Jesus saying He is the ONLY begotten Son, not just a son like Adam.

Secondly, Muslims say Adam was a greater miracle than Jesus because he had no mother or father. In response I say that Adam was born of the dust of the earth (Gen), Jesus by the Holy Spirit (John). Thats the difference.

Thirdly, Ask the Muslim when he mentions that the trinity is not in the bible this question. Say to him, The word trinity is not in the Bible, however, the CONCEPT of the trinity is, see end of the gospel in NT, where Jesus says "Baptize them in the NAME (Singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" Also, the trinity concept is in OT Isaiah

For to us a child is born,

to us a son (JESUS) is given,

and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor (PARAKLETOS - HOLY SPIRIT),b Mighty God (GOD),

Everlasting Father (FATHER GOD), Prince of Peace. (MESSIAH)


So... The Trinity is in the Hebrew Bible aswel as NT. the Jews have this in their own scriptures and thus Muslims cannot deny this concept of God.

Then say to the confused muslim, why is it that you question ME about this trinity, when in the Koran, the word Wadu (Ritual washing before prayer) a key tenet of Islamic practise is not even mentioned ONCE in the koran? Why is that? And why do you a Muslim do it if it is not in the koran? Then answer them and say, the CONCEPT of Wadu is there in the Koran, but the word isnt. In the same way, the word Trinity is not in the Bible, but the concept is.

Moreover, Remember one thing. There IS NO SUCH THING AS A MUSLIM SCHOLAR. No such thing! Just always remember that. Say to yourself "There is no such thing as a muslim scholar... " They are brain dead. They deny facts that scholarship has given nobel prizes for discovering. What clown denies the Crucifixion of Christ?? A Mohammedan one.

Claude Lafrance said...

Thank you, Yakovsky for this precise, concise and intelligent commentary. I hope some Muslims will understand but,you know, Allah "set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil." Q : 1, 6

Claude Lafrance said...

Thank you, Yakovsky for this precise, concise and intelligent commentary on the concept of Trinity. I hope some Muslims will understand but, you know, Allah "set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil." Q : 1, 6