Friday, March 13, 2009

Jesus' Death by Crucifixion: A Litmus Test for Honest Investigation

Jesus' death by crucifixion is as historically certain as anything can be. This is a fact noted by virtually all non-Muslim scholars, including atheists and agnostics. Here's what some of them have to say:

Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”  Gert L├╝demann  

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”  J.D. Crossan 

“The passion of Jesus is part of history.”  Geza Vermes

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is “historically certain” Pinchas Lapide 

“The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.”  Paula Fredriksen

“The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its co-agents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned, and was executed by crucifixion” L.T. Johnson

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Ponitus Pilate.” Bart Ehrman

Muslims, however, believe exactly the opposite. The Qur'an says:

"That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." 4:157

So history tells us one thing, and the Qur'an tells us something entirely different. (It's apt to note the irony here: the Qur'an calls those who are using evidence 'full of doubts' and following 'conjecture'!)

Now, all Muslims will argue that the Qur'an is correct. In light of the evidence, this requires one of two defenses. They must either say: 1-There is not enough evidence in history to conclude that Jesus died on the cross; or 2-History is wrong and the Qur'an is right. 

We have seen that response number 1 is wrong; the proof for Jesus' death by crucifixion is overwhelming! But if a Muslim uses response number 2, he is admitting that the Qur'an goes against the facts. That doesn't automatically mean the Qur'an is wrong, it just puts a heavy burden of proof upon the Qur'an to show itself as reliable by some other means.

So, here's your litmus test to see if you're dialoguing with an honest Muslim investigator.

1 - Provide the evidence for Jesus' death, including the scholarly consensus.

2 - Show your Muslim friend that the Qur'an goes against all the evidence.

3 - See how the Muslim resolves this predicament.

If your Muslim friend says "Well no matter what you say, there's just not enough evidence here" then be assured that the person with whom you are dialoguing is not open to an honest investigation (at least not vocally). If the Muslims responds with "You're right, all of history is against the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is more trustworthy than all of history", you have good reason to believe that you're dealing with an honest investigator.


Anonymous said...

I think the best solution for this for a muslim is to assert that this is simply sarcasm.

This ayah from 600 years after the event states that all nun-muslims follow conjecture and don't know what happened.

Historical examination of all the reliable early sources states that there is overwhelming proof that Jesus died.

And the best thing is, the Quran doesn't even say what happened! It's the muslims who speculate!

Unknown said...

Qureshi:Now, all Muslims will argue that the Qur'an is correct. In light of the evidence, this requires one of two defenses. They must either say: 1-There is not enough evidence in history to conclude that Jesus died on the cross; or 2-History is wrong and the Qur'an is right. We have seen that response number 1 is wrong; the proof for Jesus' death by crucifixion is overwhelming! But if a Muslim uses response number 2, he is admitting that the Qur'an goes against the facts. That doesn't automatically mean the Qur'an is wrong, it just puts a heavy burden of proof upon the Qur'an to show itself as reliable by some other means.

If Jesus died on the cross, then it is highly unlikely that he would appear to his disciples as a living, breathing, natural person since we don't have experience of dead people coming back to life except in works of fiction. Therefore, the probability that he was resurrected(tacitly stated in your arguments) is very low.

If the disciples claimed that they saw Jesus, it is more rational and plausible to believe that they were either mistaken in that they saw someone who looked like Jesus but presumed he was their "Lord", or they had in fact seen Jesus. If they had in fact seen Jesus, but Jesus was supposed to be dead, then rationally, he must have survived the ordeal on the cross. This coheres with the Quran statement that he wasn't killed.

Royal Son said...

David, Nabeel, etc... I have been writing some group emails on this particular subject. Would it be alright if I post them here? It investigates the two major theories put forward by Muslims - i.e. the swoon theory and the substitution theory.

Fernando said...

Ibn... welcome back!!! May I aske you just one question to see iff I graspp your argument:

you denie the deaf of Jesus on thee Cross on the evidence that the NT says the apostles and the disciples saw him (ore someone that they taught it was him) alive after the cruxifiction?

ounce again: glade to hear from you...

Anonymous said...

Ibn, have you become an atheist?

Ken said...

Great post -

The Denial of Jesus' crucifixion is the biggest lie that has been told in all of history. Even Liberal scholars, who don't believe in the resurrection or the Virgin Birth of Christ, do believe that He was really crucified and killed in real time and space history. Muslims believe in the miracle of the virgin birth, but deny clear history.

About the quotes from scholars, historians, liberal scholars/theologians - some I recognize like John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Geza Vermes (work on the Dead Sea Scrolls); but the others I don't.

Can you give the reference for each quote and a little blurb on who they are?

That helps document these great statements.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Another muslim double standard.

It is amazing how muslims may use the sources of Ehrman, Vermes, Crossan and Ludemann and then disagree in this particular matter of Jesus' crucifixion.

What is even more funny is that the death of Jesus is so natural and obvious, and indeed so historical, and the Muslims decide to reject it; meanwhile as they incorporate all the speculative carbage of the scholars into their approach against Christianity.

Is is possible to be more inconsistent?

I simply don't get my head around how these people think.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

The Qur'anic view of Jesus death originated in the Greek view of pluralism, which emerged in a Christian shape under the umbrella name gnosticism.

These believed that matter was evil, a creation of a lesser divine being.

Thus matter (the universe) opposed the nature of God.

Christ therefore entered the world spiritual and remained spirituall, as John the apostle notes about the gnostic view: they did not believe that Christ was revealed in flesh.

Hence most gnostics rejected his virgin birth, his death and of course his resurrection.

Gnostics ussually believe either:

1) that the divine Christ possessed the human Jesus (who either was purely normal or as some Gnostics would claim was preferred for Christ through virgin birth);

2) that Christ was purely spiritual but appeared physical.

The former group believed that Jesus the man was crucified while Christ exonterated himself from the body and took off to heaven.

These however seemed to believe that God did rise up the man Jesus. This group seemed to be the one followed by some of the ebionites who according to Irenaeus followed the view of Valentinus yet remembered the death and resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week.

The second group believed that Judas was transformed into the look of Jesus and crucified. This idea was significant since God intended to trick the world in believing that Jesus died; the truth was only for a few choosen ones, the divine sparks caught in the material universe.

A third group indeed believed that Jesus was crucified and appeared to suffer, while only certain followers saw him laughing on the cross.

This idea is not Jewish or Semitic, it is Greek.

It is funny that this is the very doctrine the author of the Qur'an has plagiarized into was supposedly was revealed from heaven. Probably because the gnostics sojourned in the wilderness.

Notice that this only reveals that the Qur'an is pure bogos, dependent upon early ideas and not God.

Anonymous said...

So, what happened according to Ibn?

Peter: "Jesus! You're alive! Did your divine Father raise you from the dead?"
Jesus: "No. Allah made it only look like this, to fool billions of people. And Allah is not my father."
Peter: "But you say 'my father' all the time. And he must have raised you! You were dead!"
Jesus: "When I called him my father, I mean something different. I'm not telling you what I meant. Anyway, I wasn't raised."
Peter: "Let's proclaim that God raised his son!"
Jesus: "Are you even listening?"
Allah: "Now I will make Jesus ascend to heaven, so that billions of people will believe he was my divine son and I raised him. But don't be afraid. I will fix this error by telling someone in another country that it never happened, in 600 years."
Jesus: "Brilliant idea!"

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michelle Qureshi said...

Ibn, are you saying the Quran is wrong in Surah 3 ayat 49 when it says that Jesus was able to raise people from the dead?

Unknown said...

Qureshi:Ibn, are you saying the Quran is wrong in Surah 3 ayat 49 when it says that Jesus was able to raise people from the dead?

The veracity of my argument doesn't really depend on the Quran.

Fernando said...

Please, you guys: donte scare Ibn withe difficulte questions... lett hime answer mie bery simple questions... then he's all youres...

Ibn again: «you denie the deaf of Jesus on thee Cross on the evidence that the NT says the apostles and the disciples saw him (ore someone that they taught it was him) alive after the cruxifiction?»

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yeah it does seem that Muslims reject that people have been raised from the dead, much contrary to the Qur'an which states that Jesus raised people from the dead.

I wonder how these individuals whom Jesus raised from the dead could appear alive and breathing (to use Ibn's logic), even though the Qur'an appears to state that they did. Oh yeah the Qur'an must be wrong, since rising from the dead only appears in fiction.

hmm, do we have an indication here, a confession from a very angry muslim that the Qur'an is fiction?

Yeah perhaps Ibn is turning into an atheist, at least this is the logic he is utilizing.

There seems to be a lot modern muslims reject in the Qur'an, e.g. the preservation of the Injeel, and now that Jesus raised the dead.

Seems that muslims have begun to slightly doubt the facts proposed by their own holy book.

Abdul Haziz said...

Brother Ibn... what did you want to say? Jesus indeed resurrected many people from the dead…

Michelle Qureshi said...

Seems that muslims have begun to slightly doubt the facts proposed by their own holy book.

This in defense of their holy book, no less!

Michelle Qureshi said...

The veracity of my argument doesn't really depend on the Quran.

No, but it does contradict the Qur'an.

Aristion said...

Ibn said: "If Jesus died on the cross, then it is highly unlikely that he would appear to his disciples as a living, breathing, natural person since we don't have experience of dead people coming back to life except in works of fiction. Therefore, the probability that he was resurrected(tacitly stated in your arguments) is very low."

So you're no longer a Muslim? Last time I checked, Muslims didn't reject the probability of God's existence, and thus the probability of miracles. However, the blog post is about his death by crucifixion, which isn't even a miraculous claim.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

The veracity of my argument doesn't really depend on the Quran.

Elijah replies:


Lets get this straight:

point one: Jesus did not resurrect because dead.

Reason: dead people don't rise from the dead.

Problem: The Qur'an states that Jesus did resurrect people.

The muslim reply to the problem: the Qur'an does not count.

That is the kind of inconsistency that results from theistic use of naturalism to defeat theistic views.

Abdul Haziz wrote:

Brother Ibn... what did you want to say? Jesus indeed resurrected many people from the dead…

Elijah replies:

Exactly, what is Ibn trying to say here?

He openly contradicts the Qur'an! He has openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead, since no one had ever been raised from the dead. He has openly stated that the Qur'an is a book of fiction! Since resurrection belongs to the world of fiction.

I wonder if Ibn is showing signs of doubting his own faith.

Michelle Qureshi said...

It seems some Muslims are so vehemently against Christianity that they'll even deny Islam in their attacks!

Fernando said...

Guys... it lookes you all habe scared Ibn... thate was whatt I did not wante... let's hope he won't desapear...

Royal Son said...

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who
are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18

On my last days of Paltalk, I had an interesting conversation with a muslim gentleman named Yahya. I said to him that the only reason he believes that Jesus Christ was not crucified was because of Surah 4:157. He agreed.

I would go so far as to say that if Surah 4:157 explicitly taught that Jesus was in fact crucified I would be certain that he he would believe the crucifixion as we do, citing the same evidence we do to those who disagree, and his muslim brothers would follow suit.

Let us first examine Surah 4:157 and how we can know it is not divinely inspired. Then we
can take a look at the Islamic explanations of what took place on that day at Calvary.

"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." - 4:157 Shakir Translation.

Let us look first at the titles given by the Jews in this verse to Jesus:

(1) Messiah
(2) Son of Marium
(3) Messenger of Allah

The only plausible title that would appear in this verse is the 2nd - i.e. Son of Marium.

However, let's take a look at the other two. Firstly, the Jews would NEVER refer to Jesus as the Messiah, because they did not believe that He was the Messiah. They would certainly not desire to kill a person whom they genuinely thought was the promised Messiah.

But the problem becomes even greater when we examine the third title - Messenger of Allah. First of all, Jesus was never ever referred to in any historical writings as the Messenger of Allah. The name Allah does not ever appear in them, including the Talmud. Again, like with the first title, the Jews would never refer to someone they are killing as a messenger or prophet of God. It would seem more likely that they would call him a messenger of the devil or some other such thing.

Now we turn our attention to the words "killed" and "crucified". This is where Muslim theology melts into a puddle of goo. There is a big split here as to what this really means. Some believe that it means that Jesus was not put to death, nor was He even put on the cross. This is known as the Substitution theory, and was commonly the most traditional view held by Muslims. One such proponent of this theory today is Osama Abdallah (founder of

Some believe, as Shabir Ally points out, that the word "killed" is referring to the act of
execution in a general way, whereas "crucified" is referring to the act of execution in a specific way. Thus, they claim, Jesus was in fact put on the cross, but did not die there. The obvious objection from the former interpretors is that being nailed to the cross equals crucifixion, which would contradict the Qur'an. This point was masterfully made in a debate between Ahmed Deedat and John Gilchrist. Read more about that debate at this URL:

The substitutionists also interpret "but it appeared to them so (like Isa)" as meaning that there was another person made to look like Jesus, who was put upon the cross. Some Muslims say that it was Judas Iscariot. Others say Simon of Cyrene, and others have other theories as to who it was.

The Swoon-theoriest group (Shabir Ally etc...) suggest that the text in the Qur'an merely points out that it only appeared that Jesus had been killed and crucified on the cross when in fact He had not.

A very quick rebuttal to that claim is that if they are to claim that it only appeared that way, then they would have to suggest that it appeared that Jesus was killed twice - first in a GENERAL way, and then secondly in a more specific way, i.e. by way of
crucifixion. As none of the muslims would claim such a ridiculous notion, they would by
necessity have to retract the claim that crucified must mean killing in a specific way and not allow the possibility of it simply meaning to be nailed to the cross, since the word killed already appears in the text.

Interestingly, the end of the verse only serves to add to the complete confusion, when it
says: "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."

This statement is a contradiction of the first part of the verse wherein the Jews are said to state something they are sure of, and yet the latter part of the verse says that it is they who differ about the matter, following conjecture, with no certain knowledge.

The Jews were clear about this matter. The death of Jesus was never ever disputed among them. They never differed about it. On the contrary, it is the Muslims who dispute about what took place. It is they that have no certain knowledge, following the saying of a man who came some 600 years after the event.

This verse is probably one of the strongest evidences against the Divine inspiration of the Quran. It fails logically, historically, and theologically.

When time allows, I will examine each of these two popular theories put forward by Muslims - both the Swoon theory (that Jesus passed out on the cross), and the
substitution theory (that someone else was placed upon the cross). We shall see how utterly bankrupt the muslim position rests in both theories and why we Christians can be assured of the reliability of the accounts of the gospels. I would like to go into some of the often discussed "contradictions" of the gospels and then present both cases side by side. The results will be devastating to one, and uplifting and edifying to the other.

May the Lord bless you all. He has purchased you from among men with His precious
redeeming blood. Now, may the God of all grace fill you and supply you bountifully.

In Christ,
Royal Son.

Royal Son said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

Let us continue examining the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in light of the theories perpetuated by Muslim according to Surah 4:157 which reads:

"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."

Firstly, we shall turn to the swoon theory, as it was popularized by Ahmed Deedat and see
if it fits as a plausible alternative. There are a lot of points to cover here so please
bear with me as I attempt to address them one by one. I want to cover this theory first
because it has gained increasing popularity among muslims, especially among those such as
Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Zakir Naik.

These are big names and have a large loyal following among Muslims.

I quote from Deedat's popular work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" :

"In a nutshell. No CrucifixionI ? No Christianity! This is the experience of us Muslims,
in this ocean of Christianity, which is South Africa. A thousand sects and denominations of Christianity are vying with one another to redeem the "heathen" (as they say) from hell-fire. However, in this battle no Christian priest, parson or predikant, or hot-gospeller, local or imported, will ever endeavour to teach the Muslim something about
hygiene; for we Muslims can claim to be the most hygienic people (I am talking about personal hygiene). Nor do they endeavour to teach us about hospitality; for we are the most hospitable of people. Nor about ethics or morality; for we are the most moral people? (as a whole) i.e. we don't drink, we don't gamble, we don?t date, court or dance; we pray 5 times a day, we fast for one whole month during the Muslim Holy month of Ramadaan;
and we take pleasure in being a charitable people. Despite any of our shortcomings, we venture to suggest that there is not another group of people that can "show a candle" to us in brotherhood, in piety or in sobriety. "

From the outset, Deedat attempts to throw a red herring by bringing up Hygene. What relevance does this have to the topic at hand ? We are not told. But we can be sure that he is mentioning this in order to somehow discredit the Christian position by attacking
his character, implicitly as being dirty. Add to this the other moral issues he brings up such as fasting, charity, alcohol, etc.

One could be tempted to address each of these points in great detail one by one, such as
the claim from Mohammed that water is clean, even if the dead corpse of a donkey or menstrual clothes are found there (Sunan Abu Dawud) would cast great doubt on the notion that Muslims are the most hygenic, or examples of the Muslim brotherhood killing each other (see Genesis 16:12) but let us leave that for another discussion. Back to Deedat's claims on the crucifixion:

"I dare humbly claim that such unattested documents would be thrown out of hand, in any
Court-of-Law, in any civilised country, in just two minutes. Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark, tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus ? "All his disciples forsook him and fled"- (Mark 14:50). Please ask your Christian friend, "Does "all" mean all in your language, you Englishman?" (This applies to the
North American as well) And he will no doubt say ? "Yes!"; "Does "almal" mean almal in your language, you Afrikaner?" And no doubt he will say ? "ja!" (pronounced Yaa); "And does "bonke" mean bonke in your language, you Zulu?" And he will say ? "Ahe!" This is true of every language. Why not memorise this verse from the Bible in your own dialect? Even in some additional languages?"

The point Deedat is trying to make is that Jesus' disciples ran away from Jesus and therefore there were no eye-witnesses. Yet this same book shows that there WERE witnesses:

- Simon from Cyrene (Mark 15:21)
- The crowd (Mark 15:29)
- Chief Priests and Elders (Mark 15:30)
- Women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 15:40)

Most importantly, PETER actually returned:

"Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire." - Mark 14:54

These verses are all from the Gospel of Mark, the very same book that Deedat quotes from to try to prove that there were no eye-witnesses. He cannot pick and choose which verses he will allow.

Let us read from John 19:24-27 - "24 So this is what the soldiers did. 25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing
nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple,"Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

Here we see that Mary, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene were there.
Also the disciple whom Jesus loved, which is a reference to John. Were there witnesses to
the crucifixion ? Deedat says no. The Bible says yes.

From the outset, the Muslim position is very much in question. You have multiple witnesses and multiple attestation to the fact that there were many witnesses to the crucifixion. On this basis alone, Mohammed's testimony is thrown out, as he appears some
600 years later with historical basis for Surah 4:157. However, we have barely begun to touch upon the swoon theory itself, so let us press on and attempt to interact with more meaningful arguments.

After wading past numerous out of context quotations and misappropriations of the gospel
accounts, I finally came to a point of significance. That is, that Jesus Christ was not willing to die. We read:

"Jesus will not be a sitting-duck for a clandestine arrest by the Jews. He prepares his disciples for the impending showdown.

Discreetly, so as not to frighten his disciples, he introduces the subject of defence. Gently he begins:

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said,"Nothing" Then said he unto them,

"But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!" - Luke 22:35-36

Here Deedat attempts to prove that Jesus is trying to avoid being captured and killed by telling his disciples to buy swords. Does this verse prove that Jesus was unwilling to be crucified? If we read the very next verse (38), we shall see Jesus Himself explain the
purpose of the swords: (22:37) "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." Was the purpose so that Jesus would attack the authorities? No. Was it even to defend himself? No. The purpose was simply to fulfill the scripture which said
that He would be numbered with transgressors. In fact, if Jesus' reason was to attack or
even to defend against his opposers, then the verse after that would not make sense. It

22:38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Would two swords enough to defend against Jesus' opposers ? Surely not! Nor would it be enough to even begin to launch a meaningful attack. Were Jesus so concerned about His safety, he would have told them, "Get more. Get as many as you can." The Muslim
interpretation, while entertaining and controversial on a superficial level, does no justice to the plain reading of the verses in context.

Deedat continues:

"This is a preparation for Jihaad, a Holy War ? Jews against Jews! Why! Why this somersault? Did he not advise them to "turn the other cheek"; "to forgive seventy times
seven" (70 x 7 = 490)? Did he not send his chosen Twelve with the advice:

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye, therefore, as wise as serpents, (?) and as harmless as doves." - Matthew 10:16"

Unfortunately for Deedat, he can't seem to get out of the Islamic mode of Jihad. Notice how he now brings a verse from a different book, and completely different context again. He tries to use this verse as if it is a continuation of Luke 22:38.

Despite the lack of scholarly methodology in his use of scripture, we shall address the
use of this verse as well in its context.

Let us go to the beginning of this chapter (Matthew 10) and follow the verses one by one leading up to verse 16 which Mr Deedat quoted, and see if it is talking about Jihad:

1 - Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

2 - Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3 - Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus ;

4 - Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

5 - These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

6 - but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 - "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

8 - "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

9 - "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,

10 - or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.

11 - "And whatever * city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.

12 - "As you enter the house, give it your greeting.

13 - "If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.

14 - "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.

15 - "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

16 - "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

Does anything here sound like Jesus is preparing his disciples for Jihad? Absolutely not. He is simply teaching them how to carry out their service of PREACHING, HEALING,CLEANSING, CASTING OUT DEMONS, AND BLESSING people.

Interestingly, we note from the very first verse of this chapter, that this is the point at which the disciples were appointed, the parallel chapter in Luke is also chapter 10, which is 12 chapters before the verses about the swords. If Jesus was really preparing for a Jihad, and only manages to come up with 2 swords after 12 chapters, then he's not
doing a very good job. Perhaps if Mr. Deedat showed respect for the text of scripture, he would concede that such a notion is absurd. The purpose of the swords was for the fulfillment of scripture as being counted among the transgressors. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The fact that Jesus warned his disciples that they would be sent as sheep among wolves, does not mean that they would be preparing for a Jihad, as Mr. Deedat suggests, but that they would simply meet opposition in their preaching and service. In fact, verse 16, the very verse that Mr. Deedat quotes from tells them to be innocent as doves. Some
translations render it as "gentle" as doves.

Let us see what the verses following verse 16 say:

17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.

18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,

20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

These verses certainly seem to speak of violence, especially verse 17 and 21, however, are the disciples commanded to fight in these verses? The closest possible thing to such a command are the first few words in verse 17 "Be on your guard against men" That's it.
That's all there is. And yet they are not told to fight, just simply to be on guard. We note further that they are told that they will be arrested and flogged. Jesus doesn't tell them to fight back, but rather that this is what is going to happen. It is a certainty. Yet in the midst of this He comforts them saying in verse 19 and 20 not to
worry for they will be given the right words by the Spirit of the Father.

Now the Muslim may interject and say, but look at verse 21 - it says that Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Yes. And children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Yes. But it says nothing about the followers of Jesus doing the killing. Obviously it will be those who oppose Jesus and His followers who will carry this out, those same ones mentioned in verse 17. Thus, it is abundantly clear that there is no Jihad being spoken of here. We see no battle plan from Jesus. We see no command to fight from Jesus. On the contrary He comforts them concerning the Spirit of the
Father who will be with them in the midst of their suffering.

I will continue in the next post to examine the swoon theory further and expose why it has no credibility whatsoever.

May the Lord have all the Glory.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

Royal Son said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

As we continue working our way through the swoon theory presented by Ahmed Deedat, we summarize the points thus far:

1. Deedat claims that Muslims are the most hygenic, generous, and
ethical people. As I pointed out, this is questionable at best and has nothing to do with the topic.

2. Deedat claims that there were no witnesses to the crucifixion
because everyone forsook Jesus and fled. And yet the bible shows that
people returned later, including Peter, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and John the disciple.

3. Deedat claims that Jesus was preparing for Jihad because he didn't want to die, citing the reference to the swords that Jesus ordered His disciples to purchase. Yet Jesus explained that it was merely to fulfill scripture, not for fighting.

We continue this third point further. Deedat writes:

"He had with him Peter (the Rock) and John and James (the sons of
Thunder) together with the other eight, each vying with one another to go to prison for him; to die for him. 1 These were all Galilians. They had a reputation of Zealotism, terrorism and repeated insurrections against the Romans.

Armed with sticks and stones, and the swords, and fortified with the
spirit of self-sacrifice which they had avowed for their Master, he was sure to knock hells into any Jewish rabble that dare confront him."

Notice how Deedat attempts to amplify the situation by referring to Peter's name as Rock. Matthew 16:16-18 clearly teaches that the
purpose of this name was to signify that Peter (which actually means stone - (Petros in the Greek)) is a building material for the church.
He repeats this sentiment in his own epistle 1 Peter 2:5 where he says "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." So not only is Peter a stone, but so also
are we, the believers in Christ, and this is for God's building, not
fighting in a Jihad as Deedat would have us believe.

Regarding John and James as the sons of Thunder, again Deedat mentions this in order to create some shock value, and yet if we look at Jesus' attitude towards these brothers, we realize that he had no intention whatsoever to use them for violent purposes. We read in Luke chapter 9:51-56 -

"51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus
resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead,
who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but
the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for
Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56 and they went to another

Here we see the attitude of James and John which was aggressive toward those who did not welcome them, and what does Jesus do ? Does he commend them for wanting to call fire from heaven ? Was Jesus' attitude to start a Jihad with them? No. He rebuked them and they went on to another village.

It is amazing how Deedat can take a verse out of context to make it
have the appearance of Islamic doctrine, albeit the doctrine of Jihad. We are not amused.

We read on:

"He had proved himself a skilful strategist and planner, alert and
resourceful. This was not the time to sit and twiddle thumbs; to be a
sitting-duck, cooped up with his disciples in the upper-room! No, not for him. He leads his platoon, in the middle of the night, to
Gethsemane-Gethsemane ? an olive press ? a courtyard built of stone
walls some 5 miles out of town."

So the people whom Jesus is leading is a platoon now according to Deedat. Keep in mind again that James and John were rebuked by Jesus for having an aggressive spirit, and Peter is the one who was rebuked for telling the Lord "This shall by no means happen to you" i.e. His crucifixion. In fact so strong was Jesus' rebuke toward Peter that He called Him Satan, showing that it was totally of Satan that Jesus would not go to be crucified but rather to be rescued out of that situation. What does that say about Surah 4:157? What does that say about Mohammed? And yet now, according to Deedat we are to believe that Jesus is using these very people to escape crucifixion by way of
Jihad. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Deedat continues:

"On the way, he unburdens to them the seriousness of the situation.
The implications and the explosive nature of the coup that failed. Now
he must bear the wrath of the powers that be. The price of failure!

You do not have to be a military genius to appreciate that, Jesus
(pbuh) deploys his forces as a master tactician, in a manner that
would bring credit to any Officer out of "Sandhurst"1. He places eight of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding them:

"... Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."

So now, for for some apparent reason, Jesus decides not to go ahead with his Jihad after all. Is it because perhaps He only just figured out that He only has 11 people and 2 swords with Him? Deedat knows that the Jihad position fails and tries to use this as an exit strategy to somehow save face. If Jesus had truly wanted to begin a Jihad, He could have sent legions of angels at a simple command:

Matthew 26:53
"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at
my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Were Ahmed Deedat still alive I would have told him, "Sir, with all due respect, if you were to talk to Jesus about starting a Jihad with sword, sticks and stones as you claim, He would say this very word to you."

I believe that the same kind of aggressiveness that we see in James and John, who asked the Lord to call fire down from heaven upon those who did not welcome them, is the same spirit of aggressiveness we see in the suggestions of violence that Deedat purported.

I will continue in the next post addressing the point of Jesus praying to the in Gethsemane to His Father, asking Him to remove the cup from Him.

God bless you all,
Royal Son.

Royal Son said...

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We continue examining the Swoon Theory proposed by Ahmed Deedat in his work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction". In the previous post, we saw that Mr. Deedat claimed that Jesus was preparing a Jihad to escape from the cross. As we noted:

Jesus told the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. When the Disciples said they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough. Enough for what ? Enough to fulfill scripture that he would be counted among the transgressors. Certainly 11 disciples and 2 swords does not sound like a Jihad. What's more, Deedat says that Jesus' plan failed and thus he told His disciples to put down the swords, and yet we saw that if Jesus truly
wanted to mount a Jihad, He had legions of angels at His disposal, He could have summoned the thousands of other followers that He had, and He would not have stopped at a meager 2 swords. The Jihad argument fails on every level.

So now we move on to discuss Jesus' prayer to the Father in Gethsemane. It is interesting
that Deedat tries to use this very chapter of Matthew when in it Christ teaches:

1. That He would be crucified (Matthew 26:2)
2. That His blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28)
3. That He would be buried (Matthew 26:12)
4. That He would rise again (Matthew 26:32)
5. That His death and resurrection fulfills Scripture (Matthew 26:31-32)
6. The He is the Son of God, and Judge of the World (Matthew 26:63-64)
7. That the gospel was to be preached to the whole world (Matthew 26:13)

Those are seven points that totally devastate the entire case for Islam. Ahmed Deedat may
have thought he was smart by trying to twist verses from the bible to prove his case, yet
the very scripture he attempts to utilize, completely refutes His position.

Deedat writes:

". . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he unto them, ?my soul is
exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . ."
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (This is the quality of a good Muslim
who submits his will to the will of God). (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26: 37-39

We briefly make note of Deedat's mention of the way Jesus prostrated Himself "exactly as
the Muslim does in Salaat". Prayer is not restricted to the posture of prostration, but it is one of many ways one can pray. To prove this, the reader may see Psalms 123:1, John 11:41-42, John 17:1, Mark 6:41, and Mark 11:25.

Deedat says that Jesus' prayer is the mark of a good muslim who submits His will to the will of God. Apart from calling Jesus a muslim, we find nothing that we need to argue with here, for we too believe that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father (John 4:34).

The reason why Deedat brings this up is to show that Jesus didn't want to go to the cross, hence the reason to try to escape it, e.g. through praying this prayer.

And yet, the very verses cited by Jesus show something emphatically clear : That He did not want to do ANYTHING outside of the Father's will. Contrast this with Peter's
statement that Jesus should by no means go to the cross, Peter had no consideration for what the Father's will was. Jesus continually sought the Father's will. Mr. Deedat is expecting Jesus to joyfully welcome the cross of His own will, joyfully welcome the flogging, the scourging, the mocking, the humiliating death upon the cross.

The fact that Jesus did not of His own will welcome such things, shows that He had a human nature and experienced suffering and anguish as we do. And yet, the beauty of this is that in spite of His genuine will, He submitted to the will of the Father. We note
therefore that the focal point of Christ's living, was not the cross, but the will of the Father. When He saw that the cross was of the Father's will, He was fully set on carrying it out as John 18:11 says "So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"

We see very clearly, as has been the consistent testimony of Jesus, that His intent focus was upon doing the very will of the Father, and that focus never shifted, before His prayer in Gethsemane, during His prayer in Gethsemane, or after His prayer in Gethsemane.
Again, we see the contrast between Peter and Jesus, where Peter is intent on rescuing Jesus, because of his own will, but Jesus is intent on drinking the cup of wrath because it is the Father's will.

Now Deedat takes a detour, let's try to follow him:

Why all this bewailing and lamentation? Is he crying to save his skin? It would be highly
cynical on his part to do that! Did he not advise others:
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right hand offend thee,
cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (HOLY BIBLE)
Matthew 5:29-30
We would be doing Jesus a grave injustice if we thought that he was crying like a woman to save his body from physical harm. He was crying for his people ? the Jews. They held a queer logic, that if they succeeded in killing any would-be Messiah (Christ), it would be a sure proof of his imposture. For God Almighty will never allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed ? (Deuteronomy 18:20). Hence the insistence of the Jews as a
people, as a whole, in rejecting Jesus, the son of Mary, as their promised Messiah ? "The eternal rejection." "

Deedat is trying to assert that Christ's sorrow in Matthew chapter 26 is for the same reason as His sorrow in Matthew chapter 5. Instead of actually dealing with the context of Matthew chapter 26, he has to skip back 19 chapters to support his position! This is
what Mr. Deedat has to do, because he CANNOT allow scripture to speak for itself. Verses 37 and 38 of Matthew 26, talking about Jesus being sorrowful are explained by verse 39, wherein Jesus asks the Father for the cup to pass from Him, i.e. the suffering of
crucifixion. It is not because He is weeping for Jerusalem. It would make absolutely no sense if we were to interpret the cup now to mean the rejection of Jerusalem. Mr. Deedat thinks that being grieved because of facing certain death is "crying like a woman" as he puts it, and yet a more reasonable interpretation is that Jesus is crying sweat drops of
blood because people in Jerusalem are rejecting Him as a Messiah. This is the complete stretching and twisting of scripture upon Mr. Deedat's part. The simple plain reading of the text shows that Jesus was experiencing anguish in the face of certain death. We do
not see Jesus in sweat drops of blood in Matthew Chapter 5 as we do in chapter 26.Context is king.

Now we notice that the verses plucked from Matthew 5:29-30 are again of a completely different context. We read the verses again:

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew 5:29-30.
These verses are talking about the Kingdom law, which expounds and raises the bar upon the law of the Old Testament. In particular, the reference to the eye being plucked off or the hand being cut off, it is referring to the matter of adultery, which Jesus says can be done simply by looking lustfully upon another woman. Of course, we are not literally to do these things but it is a principle whereby we ought to be very strict by not giving any occasion for the flesh to indulge its desires. What we have here is yet another example of Ahmed Deedat using a scattergun approach by taking a bunch of completely unrelated verses and stringing them together in the hope that the bewildered
Christian will have no response. Fortunately, by simply reading verses in their context we know what their application is.

In the same comments, He brought up Deuteronomy 18:20 which reads:
"20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Deedat says "For God Almighty will never allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed". Deedat is attempting to make the verse say more than it does. The verse never says that God will not allow a true Messiah to be killed. It is merely saying that a false prophet ought to be put to death according to law. If Deedat really wants to believe that God wouldn't allow true prophets to be killed, then he would have to reject Mohammed as being a false prophet, because he was poisoned by a Jew as we read in Bukhari:

"Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a
gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, So-and-so." He said, "You have told a lie; your
father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet
said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in
it." Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which
case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would NOT HARM YOU." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394)And again, specifically leading to his death:

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him
of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the
pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

In the course of presenting his case against the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Ahmed Deedat has demonstrated that he must use red herrings, out of context quotations, read thoughts into the text completely foreign to the derived meaning of the text, and apply standards to Jesus that would disqualify his own beloved prophet Mohammed.

I shall continue Lord willing and demonstrate further why the swoon theory is completely false and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a true and historical event.

Glory to God, now and forever. Amen.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

Royal Son said...

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I apologise for this particular post because it was very long and difficult to convert between the html email format and a format suitable for this forum.

We have been examining the Islamic position against the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and have found that it cannot survive when taking the testimony of the gospels in their context, without adulterating the word by introducing foreign thoughts into the text.

In part 4, we saw that contrary to Deedat's claim that Jesus was unwilling to go to the cross, and was even prepared to set up a Jihad (Holy War) to prevent it, the bible testifies of the absoluteness of Jesus' heart to do the will of the Father and indeed lay His life freely.

Now we press on with part 5. Please note, this particular post will be quite long because I am going to speak at length concerning Abraham and his sacrificing of Isaac. We shall see why shortly. As I continued through Deedat's work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction", I noticed an abrupt detour once again from Deedat, where he says:

"This harrowing sob-story, the blood-curdling cries and lamentations would evoke sympathy in the hardest of hearts. And the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is not averse to its effective exploitation. We are told that Jesus was destined to die for the sins of mankind. That he was "being prepared for this vicarious sacrifice before the foundation of the world".
That even before the material universe came into being, there was a contract between "Father and son," and that in the year 4000 A.A. (After Adam) 1, God himself in the form of Jesus, as the second person from the enigmatic Trinity2, was to get himself hanged to redeem mankind from the Original Sin and their actual sins.

1. According to Christian calculations the world and everything in it is 6000 years old.

2. "Trinity": The closest approximation to the Christian dogma of the trinity as found in the Bible ? "For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
- (1st Epistle of John 5:7) ? has now been unceremoniously thrown out as fabrication in the R.S.V., the most up-to-date translation of the Bible. See ? "Is the Bible God's Word?" for further Biblical interpolations."

Instead of keeping to the topic at hand, Deedat has switched gears completely. What he is doing here is throwing more non sequiters. We are supposed to be dealing with the matter of crucifixion and now Deedat starts talking about the Trinity (Mark 12:29,Matthew 28:19,John 17:3,John 5:23,Acts 5:3-4,Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Revelations 1:8, Revelations 21:6-7, Revelations 22:13-16...). He mentions that 1 John 5:7 was not in the earliest manuscripts. I agree, as do all biblical scholars. The only people who may have difficulty with this are the King James onlyists who revere the Byzantine manuscripts above the Alexandrian manuscripts, but even so, 1 John 5:7 does not in anyway alter the clear doctrine of the Trinity that is consistently presented in the bible.

Furthermore, 1 John 5:7, believed to have been derived from explanatory marginal notes for 1 John 5:8 which does appear in the earliest manuscripts, is a plausible interpretation of 1 John 5:7.

It was unfortunate that some mistakingly copied the notes into the subsequent translations without making the distinction between the text of scripture and
the notes of man, but we have sound textual critical methods that allow us to identify such things and be assured of the original renderings and appearances of text in the Old and New Testaments. This is something that is very lacking in Qur'anic textual criticism, due to the burnings of Caliph Uthman of the
variant Qur'ans.

Deedat also talks about the age of the universe. Both of these subjects are completely outside of the scope of our discussion and we will therefore give no occasion to address them at this stage. Suffice to say, his statements bear no weight against the Christian position of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.


From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to the God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for his
crucifixion. It reminds one of the Biblical Abraham, leading his son to the slaughter with the bluff that the Lord will provide a 'scape-goat.'"

As has been clearly demostrated, there was no "masterful deployment of forces". Furthermore, Jesus as a man, experienced the anguish of the event soon to follow. In spite of this anguish, rather than simply refuse to go ahead with the crucifixion, He prayed earnestly to be aligned with the Father's will. This is indeed an exemplary model of conduct for those who follow Christ.

Interestingly, Deedat refers to the experience of Abraham and His son Isaac in the sacrifice. Let us now turn our attention to this particular matter because Deedat mentions the scapegoat.

From the outset, I would like to say this. Deedat might not have realized it, but by mentioning the "scapegoat", Deedat is actually refuting his own position of the swoon theory. If anything, he would have to accept the substitutionist position rather than the swoon theory, because at least in the substitution theory, someone else takes the position of Jesus upon the cross, as the ram is slaughtered and offered to God in place of Isaac. I am not sure
whether Deedat realised that he weakened his position by mentioning this in passing, but let us turn anyway to the account of Abraham and Isaac as mentioned in the bible: Genesis 22:1-2 says

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him,
"Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Muslims will say that this account is wrong and Ishmael is more likely to have been offered because Isaac was born after Ishmael and God says "Take your son, your only son. Ishmael was the firstborn son, so it must have taken place before Isaac was born.

I would like to point out three initial problems to this position:

1. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the name of the son to be sacrificed actually mentioned.

2. Muslims are saying that it must be Ishamael because the word only appears, yet the name Isaac also appears. It is illogical to claim that the verse is corrupted because of the name Isaac and yet use the verse as an authority for the Muslim position because the word only appears. If the verse has been corrupted as Muslims would have us believe, then they have no idea whether the verse contains the word only or not. Nor would they know which name appeared, based upon point number 1.

3. The Quran actually speaks of the preservation of the Torah here:

032.023:We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then indoubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel. (Yusuf Ali)

Addtionally, we learn from the bible that the reason that Isaac is referred to as Abraham's only son is because Ishmael was born through Hagar, who was not Abraham's wife. Hence Ishmael was an illigitimate son. God promised
Abraham a son who would inherit his blessing as we read in Genesis 15:

1 After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

2 But Abram said, "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of

3 And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir. "

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir. "

5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

First we see here that Abraham thought that Eliezer of Damascus would inherit his estate because he had no children. Then the Lord promised him offspringthat would be numerous like the stars in the heavens.

Then we see that Sarah and Abraham decided to try to fulfill God's prayer themselves. Since Sarah was still barren, she told Abraham to go into Hagar the maidservant as we read in Genesis 16:

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar;

2 so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children.Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. Sarah was upset because Hagar despised her because she was pregnant while Sarah was still barren. God commanded Hagar to submit to Sarah nevetheless:

7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from,and where are you going? " "I'm running away from my mistressSarai," she answered.

9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her. "

10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants thatthey will be too numerous to count. "

11 The angel of the Lord also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

We see that Ishamel is described as being hostile and against his brothers. Does this sound familiar? Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born according to verse 16:

16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar borehim Ishmael.

This was against God's promise, and as a result, Abraham had to wait 13 years before God would appear to him again:

Genesis 17 says -

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.

2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

Notice Abraham is now 99 years old and the Lord says he WILL confirm his convenant. That means that God's covenant was not realised through Ishmael. In fact, God makes it explicitly clear that the covenant is through Isaac, not Ishmael:

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai yourwife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will comefrom her."

Abraham fell face down; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"

And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.

21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

Verse 16 shows that Ishmael is not considered to be the son promised by God, because God says that He will provide a son through Sarah and that Sarah would be the mother of nations. Notice, Sarah is
considered the mother of nations, not Hagar, so in this sense, Isaac was Abraham's only son.Verses 19 and 21 emphatically state that Isaac was the one of God's choosing though whom He would establish His covenant.

At this point, it would also be of interest to mention that the line of prophethood mentioned in the Quran actually includes Isaac's line, not Ishmael. Surely, if Ishamel is the firstborn son, a true legitimate son, and especially the one through whom Mohammed, the "greatest of all prophets " had descended, then his name would be mentioned, not Isaac's. Yet startlingly, we read:

019.049: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet. (Yusuf Ali)

045.016 :

We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book, the Power of Command and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. (Yusuf Ali)

029.027 : And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him; his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous.
(Yusuf Ali)

Here we see that Isaac's name is mentioned instead of Ishmael in the Abrahamic line. If Ishmael is truly to be considered greater than Isaac, we would have expected to see his name there. Furthermore, we find that Allah preferred Israel above all nations. Israel was the name God gave to Jacob, the son of Isaac. If Ishmael was greater, then we would not expect Israel to be preferred above all nations. Not only that, but the prophethood is given through Isaac's lineage, not Ishmael's. That in itself would disqualify Mohammed.

The muslim may object and say that Surah 6:83-86 do teach that Ishmael was a prophet and that prophethood was through him as well. Let us read:

And Ismail and Elisha and Jonah and Lut: and to all We gave favour above the nations: (86)

(To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose them. And We guided them to a straight way. (87)
This is the Guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him, all that they did would be vain for them. (88)

These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, behold! We shall entrust their charge to a new People who reject them not.(89)

Firstly, we note that that Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lut(Lot) are said to receive Allah's favour above the nations. However, Israel is uniquely named as being preferred above the nations, whereas Ismail is equated as being on par with Jonah, Elisha, and Lut(Lot).

Secondly, verse 89 says that these men, including Ishmael received the book, the authority, and prophethood. It is proposed by the Muslim then that Ishmail was a prophet. The verse states 3 things - the Book, the Authority, and the Prophethood. We are to ask ourselves - which book? Is it
the Torah? Is it the Injeel? Is it the Qur'an? Because, if we are to say that this verse definitely qualifies Ishmael to be a prophet, then we would have to say that each of the qualities, the book, the authority, and the prophethood, are applied to all of the names. Let us test this then:

If the Book is the Torah, then it wouldn't apply to Lot, because Lot was before Moses, and Moses was the one who wrote the Torah. If it refers to the Injeel, then none of the people would qualify because they all came before the Injeel. The same applies to the Qur'an since the Qur'an was given to Mohammed who came long after Ishmael. Therefore, it must be said, that the only book that seems to make sense in this surah would be the Torah, and yet that book was not given to Lot. Therefore, we can only say that at best each of the items mentioned , i.e. the book, the authority, and the prophethood can only be bestowed IN PART to each of the names given. Thus, Lot was not given the book, but perhaps he was given authority and prophethood. But we do not know which. The verse will not say. One cannot assume that both were given to lot based upon this verse since he did not receive "the book". Similarly with Ishmael, he might have been given the Torah, he might have been given the authority, and the prophethood, BUT we do not know. The verse does not equip the muslim to determine this. As such the verse cannot be used as a proof-text that Ishmael was a prophet, since it fails on Lot's account for having received the book. Perhaps some of the names received all three, but the verse does not give such information as to which people received which items. If the muslim wishes to argue that the verse means that each of the persons received all three, i.e. the book, the authority, and the prophethood, then they would have to reject this verse and indeed the Quran as the inspired word of God since Lot did not receive the Torah.

Since the Qur'an does not give the name of which son was to be sacrificed, the bible does, and the Qur'an does state that the Torah was preserved (Surah 32:33), and Genesis is a part of the Torah, and we have manuscripts that date before, during, and after the time of Mohammed, we can trust the mountain of evidence that indeed Isaac was the chosen son to be sacrificed and not Ishmael.

I note that Deedat only made the casual remark about Abraham and Isaac but I had to respond to it to impress you with the fact that we can be assured of the testimony given in Genesis, which is a great type of Christ upon the cross.

I would like to continue further into the discussion of Abraham and Isaac in my next post. Since we have seen very little if any substance from the claims made by Ahmed Deedat, I think it would be profitable at this stage to delve further into the biblical account and see how beautifully the Genesis account portrays Christ in this most wonderful aspect. This account is one of the clearest pictures concerning the crucifixion and as this series of posts is indeed on Islam and the cross, we would do well to engage in this portion of scripture.

Before I end this post, I would leave you with the following questions that the Muslim must answer:

1. Why is the Qur'an silent when it comes to the name of the person to be sacrificed if the Quran is supposed to be a light of guidance to supposedly correct the heresies followed by Jews and Christians?

2.Why did Allah prefer Israel above all the nations?

3. Why did Allah give the covenant to Israel and not to Ishmael? (surah 2:92-93) Note: the sin of Israel was forgiven by Allah (surah 2:53-54). Whether or not Israel became disobedient later, the covenant was nevetheless given to them, Israel being descendants of Isaac, not Ishamel.

4. If the swoon theory is correct, and Christ did not die upon the cross but was only hurt, then who was the ram that was slaughtered and offered up?

That'll do for now saints. Sorry about the length of the post. I hope this has not been boring but rather engaging.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

El-Cid said...

Nabeel said: "Ibn, are you saying the Quran is wrong in Surah 3 ayat 49 when it says that Jesus was able to raise people from the dead?"

Ibn said: "The veracity of my argument doesn't really depend on the Quran."

El-Cid comments: And the first Muslim to utterly fail Nabeel's "Litmus test for Honest Investigation">> Ibn! :-)

Ibn, I say this in all sincerity....You have some serious reflective thinking to do.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Fernando wrote:

Guys... it lookes you all habe scared Ibn... thate was whatt I did not wante... let's hope he won't desapear...

Elijah replies:

Ibn should at least think twice before considering any debating.

He believes that reason and the brain God has given is the main tool to differentiate falsehood from truth, which is why he rejects Jesus Christ's divinity and resurrection also.

He attempted to defend the claim of the Qur'an that babies orginate from a drop of fluid that runs from the between the back and ribs, much like the Greeks believed.

Then he tried a hopeless attempt to prove from the Qur'an that the Injeel is corrupted.

Then he resorted to serious personal insult and completely destroyed his integrity. I have to confess that I broke my own promise not to respond to Ibn's posts.

Fernando said...

Royal Son: respect!!! an amaizying worke!!!

Hogan... yes... Ibn has a lot off things to rethink... I was really expecting an unswer from him to mie question in order to help him to reallize the totally bogus position he created to himselfe... Muslims have to recreate all the rules of toughte to remain muslins...

Unknown said...

Fernando:Guys... it lookes you all habe scared Ibn... thate was whatt I did not wante... let's hope he won't desapear...

Nah. I've been busy with my university studies lately.

Regarding your question, yes I deny Jesus was KILLED on the cross because his disciples reported seeing him later, assuming it was really him.

Ariel:So you're no longer a Muslim? Last time I checked, Muslims didn't reject the probability of God's existence, and thus the probability of miracles. However, the blog post is about his death by crucifixion, which isn't even a miraculous claim.

The topic is not about God's existence or miracles, so you are basically attacking a straw man.

Hogan:He openly contradicts the Qur'an! He has openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead

That's a lie lie since I have never openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead. Misrepresenting your opponent's position is one of the basic characteristics on a Nazi.

Hogan:He has openly stated that the Qur'an is a book of fiction!

Another lie.

Hogan:Ibn should at least think twice before considering any debating.

That's coming from a guy who doesn't know the fallacy of an undistributed middle.

Hogan:He believes that reason and the brain God has given is the main tool to differentiate falsehood from truth, which is why he rejects Jesus Christ's divinity and resurrection also.


Hogan:He attempted to defend the claim of the Qur'an that babies orginate from a drop of fluid that runs from the between the back and ribs, much like the Greeks believed.

Another misrepresentation.

Hogan:Then he tried a hopeless attempt to prove from the Qur'an that the Injeel is corrupted.

An attempt that you never refuted anyway. What was your excuse again? I remember. You were busy with your so called studies.

Hogan:Then he resorted to serious personal insult and completely destroyed his integrity.

That's coming from a guy who consistently misrepresented his opponent's position.

Hogan:I have to confess that I broke my own promise not to respond to Ibn's posts.

It is amusing that a guy who constantly vilifies Muslims of being inconsistent goes against his own promise and thereby exhibit inconsistency himself. Ha!

El-Cid comments: And the first Muslim to utterly fail Nabeel's "Litmus test for Honest Investigation">> Ibn! :-)

Ibn, I say this in all sincerity....You have some serious reflective thinking to do.

How did I fail Nabeel's wacky test? I admitted that the Quran says Jesus wasn't killed.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

The topic is not about God's existence or miracles, so you are basically attacking a straw man.

Elijah replies:

How is that attacking a straw-man?

You were the one saying that nobody has ever been raised from the dead and the Qur'an (the book you believe in) proves you wrong.

And what do you mean by the topic not being miracles, you where the one who brought up the resurrection, and resurrection is a miracle.

The Christian brings up the subject of Jesus death which is pretty natural.

The Muslim brings up the topic of the resurrection to refute the natural subject.

The Christians prove that the Muslim (Ibn) is inconsistent in his argument.

The Muslim rebukes the Christian for bringing up the topic of miracles.

The Muslims then accuses the Christian of attacking a strawman.


You never seize to surprise me Ibn!

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:He openly contradicts the Qur'an! He has openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead

That's a lie lie since I have never openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead. Misrepresenting your opponent's position is one of the basic characteristics on a Nazi.

Elijah replies:

Really, you said Jesus did not rise from the dead, since nobody ever rose from the dead. Those are your own words (summarized).

So now I am a nazi because I proved your wrong?


Ibn wrote:

Hogan:He has openly stated that the Qur'an is a book of fiction!

Another lie.

Elijah replies:

Is it a lie?

You were the one who said that resurrection from the dead belongs to the world of fiction.

In the Qur'an Jesus raised people from the dead, so most presumably you recon the Qur'an to be a work of fiction.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:Ibn should at least think twice before considering any debating.

That's coming from a guy who doesn't know the fallacy of an undistributed middle.

Elijah replies:

Did I really misinterpret you.

You used atheist logic to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, in which you contradict yourself when you claim to follow the Qur'an.

At the same time you failed to utilize atheist logic when assuming that Jesus somehow never died and ascended to heaven (or entered the heaven); I wonder what your naturalistic logic has to say about that.

This is triple-inconsistency in one go.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:He believes that reason and the brain God has given is the main tool to differentiate falsehood from truth, which is why he rejects Jesus Christ's divinity and resurrection also.


Elijah replies:

So when I read the Qur'an and my brain rejects whatever it finds absurd I simply use the gift God has given me. Does did not debunk the credibility of the Qur'an.

The first time I heard this idea of rejecting false and true, e.g. by using our brain, was in London when I attended the debate between Wood and Yayhya semymor. I guess this is a widespread idea among muslims now a days.

Well, to your information the atheists use their brains, so do the Hindus and even the Christians, I guess that backfires against the only source of judgement you possess.

Also was it not your brain which is so effected by atheistic logic that committed the fallacy to contradict the Qur'an. So much for the use your brain to distinguish falsehood from truth!

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:He attempted to defend the claim of the Qur'an that babies orginate from a drop of fluid that runs from the between the back and ribs, much like the Greeks believed.

Another misrepresentation.

Elijah replies:

Was it really, or did you simply run, since your argument began to look extremely ridicolous!

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:Then he tried a hopeless attempt to prove from the Qur'an that the Injeel is corrupted.

An attempt that you never refuted anyway. What was your excuse again? I remember. You were busy with your so called studies.

Elijah replies:

Are you sure I did not refute you?

So far Muslims have never been able to solve that paradox; and you certainly did not offer anything of significance except repitition, which is why I decided to rather to waste time on my studies.

Yeah I am studying, at least until the end of May.

What do you say Ibn shall we take a proper public debate, you and me, either publicly or on paltalk.

Let me know if you are interested?

Elijah replies:

Hogan:Then he resorted to serious personal insult and completely destroyed his integrity.

That's coming from a guy who consistently misrepresented his opponent's position.

Elijah replies:

So far I have not misinterpreted anything! I merely exposed your inconsistency. Which everyone on the blog, even the muslims did mutually.

Even Abdul Haziz who I assume is a muslim was chocked by your statement.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:I have to confess that I broke my own promise not to respond to Ibn's posts.

It is amusing that a guy who constantly vilifies Muslims of being inconsistent goes against his own promise and thereby exhibit inconsistency himself. Ha!

Elijah replies:

It was pure grace Ibn, not inconsistency. I realise that you need God, you need the truth, that is the only reason why I still choose to communicate with you, despite your loss of integrity.

Fernando said...

Ibn... glade to see you arounde... and glade to habe an unswer from you...

so: you rejecte Jesus' dead on the cross -- not due to what the qur'an stattes (even I habe doubts if surah 4:138 really denies the deade of Jesus in the cross) -- because some people saw him alive latter.

may I depreende that, in thatt case, you interprett sura 3:49, which tells Jesus will ressurrect people from the dead, in a methaphorical ("dead" = "spiritualy dead") or in an escathologic way (in the end off times Jesus will recieve, from allah, the power to ressurrect people)?

In thatt case, surah 19:33 is too be, also, interpreted inn an escathalogic way?

But how cann someone be ressurrected iff he did not died? Orr surah 4:139 does nott say Jesus was takken to eaven withoute dying? Does itt onlie say Jesus was exaltted?


Royal Son said...

Islam and the cross – Part six

Dear brothers and sisters,

In the last message I started addressing the account of Genesis with regards to Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, and the sacrifice, which is a pre-figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I mentioned that the Qur'an does not actually name the person who is sacrificed whereas this name is mentioned in the bible, and since this is in the book of Genesis, a book of the Torah, and Mohammed believed that it had been preserved (Surah 32.23), then the evidence compels us to accept that it was indeed Isaac who was chosen to be a sacrifice, not Ishmael.

I also presented evidence showing that the Qur'an confirms that a covenant was given to Israel (surah 2:92-93) who descends from Isaac, not Ishmael, and that the Quran shows that the line of prophethood is through Isaac, which would disqualify Mohammed as a prophet from God.

We now turn our attention to the sacrifice itself in Genesis 22.
First we note : The Abraham was willing to give his only son whom he loved. This is a type of the Father freely giving His Son whom He loves for our redemption.

Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

There were witnesses who saw from a distance:

4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.

5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Notice also the reference to the third day. As you have the third day upon which Christ resurrected - in this case - Isaac lived after the sacrifice.

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,

The wood signifies the cross, the fire signifies judgement, and the knife signifies the piercing.

7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Here Isaac knows that the requirement of a burnt offering is a lamb. Thus in this accout, we actually need both aspects to complete the picture. On the one hand, showing Isaac as the Son given by his Father signifying Christ the Son given by God (John 3:16), on the other hand, the lamb signifying Christ as the lamb of God (john 1:29,1:26,Rev 5:6,Rev 7:17, Rev 14:10,Rev 15:3,Rev19:9,Rev 21:23,Rev 22:1,Rev 22:3).

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
At this point, the muslim might suggest that this picture shows that Jesus escaped death and therefore Deedat was correct with the swoon theory. But the account does not finish here. Keep in mind, there are two aspects of Christ being portrayed, one as the Son of God, and the other as the lamb of God.

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

The ram is caught by it’s horns in the thicket (thorny bush) just like the crown of thorns placed upon the head of Christ.

14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided."
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time

16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,

17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,

18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
Notice in verse 16 that God considers the sacrifice as to have taken place, through Abraham’s faith as he had not withheld his only son, which was an act of obedience (verse 18).

Now the muslim may interject at this point and say that the substitution theory must be correct since the ram died in the place of Isaac. The problem with this is that the lamb that was to be offered up as a burnt offering was to be unblemished (Exodus 12:5), so whoever ended up being sacrificed upon the cross of Calvary must have been sinless. This would not make sense in the Islamic substitution theory however, because they argue that Allah would never allow such harm to come to one of his prophets, and only the prophets are considered as sinless. Are we to suppose that Allah saved one prophet from going to the cross by sending another one in his place? Such a statement would be illogical and self-refuting.

Therefore, both the substitution theory and the swoon theory fail at this point. Only the New Testament fulfilment fits perfectly with Christ as the unblemished lamb of God (1 Peter 1:19)

We turn now to the next portion of Deedat’s argument. He writes:

“If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining! 1 Contrast these responses with those of Lord Nelson, a war-hero, who gave up the ghost with these undying words:
"THANK GOD, I HAVE DONE MY DUTY!". There are millions today, who would happily immolate themselves for king and country, with smiles on their faces, with shouts of "Amandhia!" or "Allahu-akbar!" or "God save the Queen!" Jesus was an un-willing victim. If this was God's scheme of salvation, then it was a heartless plot. It was murder in the first degree, and not redeeming self-sacrifice. “

Notice the words that Deedat uses: “Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining!” -
(1) Arming: Jesus did not intend to use a mere two swords for battle.
(2) Waling: I read that Jesus was grieved in His spirit and praying, not wailing.
(3) Sweating: These were sweat drops of blood. This kind of phenomenon is described in medicine as hematohidrosis.
(4) Crying: See point 2 above.
(5) Complaining: Was Mohammed complaining on his death bed? Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660 reads:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:
On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.
It seems that Mohammed is allowed to curse the Christians and the Jews for building places of worship but Jesus is not allowed to murmur anything but joyful words on the way to his death. Amazing double standards we see here from Deedat.

When Jesus is at the cross, what kinds of words do we see from Him?

(1) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." – This was to one the thief on the cross. This particular person had mocked him earlier (Matthew 27:44), but later repented (Luke 23:39-40). Did Jesus complain here, and tell rebuke the thief for mocking him earlier? No, instead He gave a great promise of Paradise.

(2) Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots (Luke 23:34). Did Jesus complain here? No, He prayed for those who were persecuting Him.

(3) Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. (Luke 23:28). Did Jesus want pity from others? Did He want others to weep for Him? No. He told them not to weep for Him but to weep for themselves and their children. This surely does not sound like a complaining Jesus to me.

(4) Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46). Jesus here does not voice angry words to the Father, rather He trusts everything into His hands.

(5) And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). Now muslims will claim that Jesus is complaining here, that he is crying in defeat. What Jesus was doing was quoting from Psalm 22:1. Let us read this Psalm in its entirety as we see that this is not a cry of defeat but a fulfilment of scripture showing the crucified Christ who triumphs victoriously. Compare the verses 1-21 with the other section of verses 22-31:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
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.
19 But you, O Lord, be not far off; O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the Lord will praise him-- may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him-- those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn-- for he has done it.
We can see here, that Christ’s crucifixion is portrayed with rich and vivid language. He describes Himself as a worm, an object of mockery by His people (verses 6 - 7), His intimate relationship with the Father from birth (verses 9 – 10), the piercing of His hands and feet (verse 16), the casting of lots over His garments (verse 18).

Verses 22 – 31 Show the triumph of the suffering servant. In fact, the cries of verse one are met with the Father’s presence (verse 24), He fulfils the righteous requirement (verse 25), the gospel goes out to all nations (verse 27), His sacrifice will have perpetual remembrance and worth (verse 30). Verse 31 shows that these verses are not merely applying to someone living in the Old Testament times, but in the future.
Thus, we have a beautiful picture of the death and resurrection of Christ which brings about a great triumphant victory!

God bless you all,
Royal Son.

Stephanie said...

Ibn wrote: That's a lie lie since I have never openly stated that Jesus did not raise the dead. Misrepresenting your opponent's position is one of the basic characteristics on a Nazi.

What's with the Nazi=Christian analogies? Is that supposed to rile us [Christians] up and attack you, thus proving we're as "barbaric" as you've deemed us? Otherwise that makes no sense--perhaps you should read and research a little bit about Nazi tactics before comparing them to someone else's remarks.

Come now. The immaturity is getting rather tiresome.

Royal Son said...

Thank you Fernando. I was anticipating the creation of this thread so I could get these posts out. It's probably my favorite topic to talk about with Muslims.

Ibn, just very briefly, you said "Regarding your question, yes I deny Jesus was KILLED on the cross because his disciples reported seeing him later, assuming it was really him."

I think you would do well to read the posts I've made in this thread. I address the false claim that Jesus had no witnesses to his death. Just do a page search on the word "witnesses" and it'll take you straight to the bit you need to read to clear up this matter for you.

God bless,
Royal Son.

Michelle Qureshi said...


Thanks for the post. The three remaining scholars are all influential thinkers in the field of the historical Jesus. I believe Lapide has passed, but the other two are still alive.

Pinchas Lapide: Jewish theologian and Israeli historian

Paula Fredriksen: Skeptical historical Jesus scholar, BU professor and Princeton grad

Gert Ludemann: One of the leading German skeptics of the resurrection

Hope that helps!

El-Cid said...

ibn said: "Misrepresenting your opponent's position is one of the basic characteristics on a Nazi."


Do you actually expect people to take you seriously when you come on this blog, insult David about his past mistakes in a very personal matter, makes jokes about him choking people, try REPEATEDLY to post a "theory" about David being sexually abused, and then vaguely allude to people displaying characteristics of Nazis? (...but I think we all know you carefully phrased the Nazi comment in precise words to allow you plausible deniability in the event anyone actually calls you out on it).

Is this a symptom of your parentage Ibn? Didn't they teach you proper life-skills for social interaction?

Royal Son said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

In part six, I continued looking at the Genesis account of Abraham, Isaac, and the sacrifice as a type of the Father giving the son, the lamb of God as means of redemption for mankind.
Ahmed Deedat turns his discussion to the subject of original sin. He writes:
“Major Yeats-Brown, in his "Life of a Bengal Lancer", summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence:

According to Deedat, it is a grotesque idea that mankind inherited sin from the father of the human race, Adam.

Yet we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:611—The Prophet said, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.”

So Mohammed himself is basically saying that the reason why women betray their husbands is because of the sin of Eve. If that is the case, then why would it be so great a leap to say that were it not for the sin of Eve (and Adam), then we too would not have the nature of sin?

The Qur’an itself describes the universal sinful condition of man: Quran 16:61
“If Allah were to take mankind to task for their wrong-doing, he would not leave hereon a living creature, but He reprieveth them to an appointed term, and when their term cometh they cannot put (it) off an hour nor (yet) advance (it).”

And again in 35:45 -
“If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily God has in His sight all His Servants.”

Thus, Deedat’s problem with the doctrine of original sin becomes irrelevant. Whether or not he wants to accept the fact that we inherited our sin nature from Adam, he is bound by his Qur’an to accept the fact that everyone upon the earth has sinned against God and are subject to his wrath or mercy. Indeed, even Mohammed himself described his own sinful nature:
Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day."

Three questions I would ask a muslim are:

1. Would you consider yourself to be more righteous than Mohammed?
2. How many times a day do you ask Allah for forgiveness?
3. Given that any good muslim would say they are no more righteous than Mohammed, and that they pray less often than Mohammed for forgiveness, how can you have any assurance that you have a good stand before Allah?

We see the awful predicament that the Muslim is left in. His own qur’an shows that everyone deserves the wrath of God due to their sin, and Mohammed according to Bukhari asked for forgiveness more than seventy times a day. Is this not a desperate cry out for the need of redemption?

What about Jesus Christ? We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641 -

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan"

This Hadith is in perfect agreement with the Quran, in Surah 3:36 we read:

“And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast” (YUSUF ALI)

What we have here is the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and the universal problem of sin in mankind. Even Mohammed recognised his own desperate need for forgiveness.

Now there are three ways that God could approach this problem:

1. Come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to be offered up as a perfect sin sacrifice for mankind.

2. Simply forgive the sins without the need of a sacrifice.

3. Allow all of mankind to perish.

Of these three possible outcomes, only the first outcome allows God to exhibit both His mercy and His Justice. The second outcome exhibits God’s mercy, but it violates His justice, because the sin goes unpunished. The third outcome preserves God’s justice but it suppresses His mercy.

Upon asking Muslims, “Will you go to paradise when you die?” I receive interesting responses. They will tend to say, “I don’t know, it is up to Allah”. So I ask them, “But is Allah not the most gracious and most merciful one?” They will reply, “Yes He is. But it is up to Him in the end whether He wants to send us to paradise or to hell.”

On the surface, this sounds similar to Paul’s teaching in Roman’s chapter 9, whereupon God says that He will have mercy upon whom He wills. But the difference here is that God’s mercy in the Christian world-view is found in the person of Jesus Christ who accomplished redemption for the elect. In Islam, a works-based religion, it seems that not even the good works of a Muslim will be enough to satisfy Allah, because at the end of the day, the Muslim will still require His mercy.

From this we must draw two possible conclusions:

1. Salvation in Islam is not based upon justice, fairness, or righteousness.
2. Every single muslim has a number of bad works which account more heavily than their good works.

Contrast this with the bible which teaches that salvation is based upon God’s justice that was enacted upon His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, accounting for the Christian a perfect account of righteousness for his stand before God. We see further, that not only does Jesus Christ redeem us, but He regenerates us by the power of the Holy Spirit to become children of God, having the life of God grow in us, so that subjectively we may experience God’s righteousness lived out of us, more and more. Ultimately, our expectation is that our whole being, spirit, soul and body will be fully soaked, saturated, and permeated with God’s life. The scriptural word for this is glorification, whereby we express God’s life in our whole being.
In short, Ahmed Deedat’s claim that crucifixion for redemption is a grotesque idea is without warrant. His entire critique of the notion of the crucifixion of Jesus is based upon his own concepts. But God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways. There is no way for man to be made right with God apart from the righteousness of God. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us the harmony of God’s mercy and justice working together.

We move on. Deedat writes:

“The latest cult among the Christians. Billy Graham claims that there are 70 million such cultists in America. Immaculate people, veritable angels! Yet in that nation over a quarter million "gays" gathered in San Fransisco last June on a pilgrimage, led by 50 lesbians on motorbikes. In New York, there are only one million more women than men and of the "men" it is said that one third are sodomites! Overall there are 10 million "problem drinkers" (meaning DRUNKARDS), in the U.S.A. If all this is true with 70 million veritable angels ("Born-Again") in their midst, then it gives a lie to Paul's : "…a little leaven leaveneth the whole ..." — (1 Cor. 5:6). Here in the Christian West not even one third can ferment the loaf. Strange!”

We ran into this sort of discussion at the beginning of our series. Again, Deedat is grasping for more reasons to doubt the bible because of the actions of people proclaiming to be Christian. The bible is not judged in light of the actions of sinners. God’s word is transcends human behaviour. Since the Qur’an attests to the fact that all of mankind deserves the wrath of God, including Muslims, there is no need to interact with Deedat’s rhetoric here.

Deedat now turns his attack upon the disciples who slept in Gethsemane, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. He writes:

“St. Luke, though he was never one of the elected Twelve disciples of Christ, holds numerous distinctions according to Christians. Among them, the "most historical", the beloved "physician", etc. As a Physician, his theory of men "SLEEPING FOR SORROW" is unique. Cries and waitings, sobs and sorrows were in abundance from Jerusalem to Gethsemane on the lips of Jesus (pbuh) which would shock and alert to wakefulness any un-ebriated1 person. Why were the "lullabies" of woe, lulling the disciples to slumber? Was their psychological make-up any different from that of twentieth century man? Professors of physiology opine that under shock, stress and fear the adrenal gland secretes a hormone into the bloodstream — nature's own injection — which chases away all sleep. Is it not possible that the disciples of Jesus had eaten too much and drunk too much: remembering that food and drink was all "on the house," 2, i.e. FREE!”

Deedat has unknowingly dug himself into a hole. He is attacking the followers of Jesus. Note that Muslims believe that Jesus’ followers were Muslims. The disciples are indeed rebuked by Jesus for not staying awake with him during their time together in Gethsemane. Deedat makes a leap of logic to suggest that the reason for this is that the disciples had eaten too much and drunken too much. He even goes on to say that food and drink was all free. Let’s address these points one by one:

1. Jesus’ disciples did not have the concept that all their food was free - “For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.” – John 4:8
2. "When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow.” - Luke 22:45 - People often do cry themselves to sleep. Could it be that the disciples were sad that their master was about to get killed?
3. The eating and drinking that the disciples had before going up to Gethsemane was the last supper with Jesus Christ. Yes there was bread and wine there, but are we to believe that Jesus would have some kind of party? This was a most solemn occasion whereby He wanted His disciples to remember Him.
4. If the disciples were drunk, then would they have been able to cut off the ear from the servant of the high priest? (Luke 22:50). If Peter was drunk, would he have remembered the Lord’s word about denying him three times?
5. The text itself explicitly says that they slept because of sorrow. If they were falling asleep because they were drunk, the text would certainly have mentioned this instead. If a drunk driver falls asleep at the wheel, he might be a sad person, but the police report would not say that he slept because he was sad, it would say because he had too much alcohol.
6. Jesus prays for them not to fall into temptation prior to falling asleep. If the disciples had over-indulged in food and wine, then such a statement would be meaningless because they would have already fallen into temptation.

We notice that the suggestions from Deedat find no evidence in the scriptures. He has to conjure up peculiar circumstances to support his theories, and yet the Christian can simply read the text for what it says.

Not only does Deedat have to twist the bible, but he has to attribute these scenarios to miscalculations on Jesus’ part. We read:

“Jesus had doubly miscalculated:-
1. Regarding the enthusiasm demonstrated by the disciples in that upper-room. Believing that he would only have to contend with the Jews in a clandestine arrest.
2. The Jews were more wily then he had thought. They brought with them Roman soldiers.
The Christian scholars are no less wily in their translations and manipulations of the Bible. They have changed the words "Roman soldiers" to simply "soldiers" and from the word soldiers to now "band of men" and "the guard".
"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons" (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:3
1. "Band of men": here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning "cohort" and "tribune". "That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest our Lord . . ." See Knox's — "A New Testament Commentary", page 260.”
We deal with the two supposed miscalculations of Jesus according to Ahmed Deedat. He suggests that Jesus thought he would have little or no opposition from the Jews because of the enthusiasm of his disciples in the upper room. Is Deedat serious here? Are we honestly to believe that Jesus based the level of opposition from the Jews upon the reception he received from his closest followers? This claim is false on so many levels.

Firstly, we note that Jesus predicted that He would be mocked, persecuted, crucified, and killed before his time in the upper room with the disciples. (Luke 18:32-33, Matthew 16:21)

Secondly, we note that in the upper room itself he spoke of the same death He was about to face - Luke (22:19-22).

Thirdly, if Jesus was going to receive little opposition, then why would Deedat claim he was preparing for a Jihad, a Holy War, an impending showdown? I am using Deedat’s own words here.

Fourthly, why do we see no indication from Jesus that He would meet little opposition? Instead we see him going ahead with the anticipation of meeting his persecutors who would ultimately bring about his death.

Fifthly, why did Jesus show no surprise at his arrest? Everything unfolded as He had predicted.

Sixthly, if Jesus truly wanted to fight, why did he rebuke the disciple who struck the slave’s ear and say that if He really wanted to fight He could summon over twelve legions of angels?

Seventhly, if Jesus was surprised, why did He say that the situation that He faced with His arresters was in order to fulfil the scriptures? The whole concept of having a Jihad, a show-down to resist the oncoming seizure would mean that Jesus would try to deliberately go against what the Scripture had prophesied concerning Him. Let us read Matthew 26:54-57 –

"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way ?"
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber ? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. "But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets." Then all the disciples left Him and fled. Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

Deedat says Jesus wanted to resist this situation. Jesus said it must happen this way, that all of this has taken place to fulfil the scriptures. We see that Ahmed Deedat’s theorizing falls apart completely.

Deedat wants to argue about the use of words in John 18:12, referring to speira and chiliarchos. He thinks that band of men does not sound close enough to the original Greek. Well, Deedat did not know Greek, nor Hebrew, needless to say, when I see the words “band of men,” it carries the connotation for me as a group of soldiers or some other such thing. I have no problem if the translation says “bands of men” or “soldiers”, because Jesus said that this is what must happen to fulfil the scriptures and Deedat cannot escape this. The arrest with the soldiers, leading to his mockery, flogging, beating, crucifixion and death were all known by Jesus to be a fulfilment of scripture. None of this came as a surprise, and in the midst of it all, He submitted to the Father’s will to proceed through it.

I hope by now you are realising how much Ahmed Deedat has misrepresented the text of scripture. He has tried his uttermost to subdue the plain reading of the gospel accounts in order to support His position of the swoon theory. We shall continue on and see further why all the evidence points to the historical fact of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

El-Cid said...

Royal Son,

This is very well written material that makes some excellent points you have posted. Thanks for sharing it :-).

I would like to suggest that you post this to a blog of your own, or one of the free online publishing services (such as Scribd). I think having it online in one place that can be easily linked to would be very beneficial.

God Bless

Royal Son said...

El-Cid : Thank you for your very kind comments. I have as of today registered a new domain name -

It is going to take some time to get things set up, but yes I will put my articles on that site.

Is it okay if I continue to post my work here for the moment? I'm actually still producing these posts as we speak, so you're seeing them hot off the press :) I just like to share them here while I set up the new site.

Anyway, I appreciate your feedback and hope that these posts will be beneficial to many Christians.

As for me, I'm just a small potato, but I find it interesting that Ahmed Deedat said that this particular book "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" is the result of many years of research. If this is the best that Islam apologetics can come up with, we can safely say it going to experience a rather unpleasant form of torment in the grave. :)

God bless you all.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Feel free to post, Royal Son :-)

Futuremedia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Royal Son said...

Thank you Nabeel.

Royal Son said...

Nabeel, could you please delete the other post, I accidentally logged in under my other user. Thankyou :)

Michelle Qureshi said...

What other post? And you can delete your post if you log back in under your other user name and click on the garbage can under the post.

Royal Son said...

Ok done.
Thanks :)

Royal Son said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

By now we should be quite clear that Ahmed Deedat showed no respect to the text of the bible. In order to support his wild theories, he had to go to extreme lengths to change the simple and clear thoughts portrayed. We have seen Deedat accuse Jesus of wanting to start a Jihad, miscalculating the cooperation from His followers and the degree of opposition He would face, and resist the will of the Father to suffer an all-inclusive death, whereby the sins of the world would be placed upon Him to redeem mankind.

Thus far, he has not even come close to successfully undermine the credibility of the gospel accounts. We see familiar argumentation from Deedat as we press on:


Did Jesus not know the truth of this statement when he ordered his disciples to sell their garments and buy SWORDS? He surely did! Then why the contradiction now? There is really no contradiction! The situation changes, so the strategy must also change. He had sense enough to realise that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretence of resistance.”
There is really no need to respond to this statement as we have already clearly demonstrated that the scenario being painted by Deedat is not a result of careful analysis of the scripture, but simply an issue of a rather fertile imagination.

Let us see if his next section, titled “Prince of peace” fares any better:

Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:
. . . and SLAY1 them before me." (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27”
The title prince of peace comes from a prophetic passage in the Old Testament. In the book of Isaiah 9:6 we read:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

We note in passing, that the title “Prince of Peace” is just one of many titles here applied to the coming messiah. We find that He is called “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father”. Deedat says that we overlook the other side of His nature. Yet I would submit that it is the Muslims who overlook His eternal, uncreated, indestructible, incorruptible, divine nature.

Deedat tries to add shock value here by quoting half a verse without providing any context. Since we believe that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching and correction (2 Tim 3:16), we post Luke 19 in its entirety and derive the interpretation from the text rather than forcing our own thoughts upon the text:

19:1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.
19:2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.
19:3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable * because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.
19:4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.
19:5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
19:6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.
19:7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
19:11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable , because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
19:12 So He said, "A nobleman, * went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
19:13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until * I come back.'
19:14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
19:15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
19:16 "The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
19:17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
19:18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19:19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
19:20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
19:22 "He *said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow ?
19:23 'Then why * did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest ?'
19:24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
19:25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
19:26 "I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
19:28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
19:29 When He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples,
19:30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you; there, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one * yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
19:31 "If anyone asks you, 'Why * are you untying it?' you shall say, 'The Lord has need of it.' "
19:32 So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them.
19:33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt ?"
19:34 They said, "The Lord has need of it."
19:35 They brought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and put Jesus on it.
19:36 As He was going, they were spreading their coats on the road.
19:37 As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,
19:38 shouting: "BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest !"
19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."
19:40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
19:41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
19:42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace ! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
19:43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because * you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
19:45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
19:47 And He was teaching daily * in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
19:48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said.

We notice first and foremost, that the words spoken in verse 27 are those in a parable (verse 11). Hence, Jesus is not commanding His disciples there and then to slay the people before Him. As much as Deedat wants to show Jesus committing violence in the gospels, he cannot do so. In fact, Jesus says emphatically that He came to save that which was lost.

Then Muslim will object and say “But the master is surely referring to Jesus Christ Himself” to which I would agree, however, this is referring to the end times, not the time of Jesus’ disciples.

Verse 11 tells us, that people supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. Jesus speaks this parable to correct them. Note verse 41 talks about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He then goes on to give a prophetic utterance in verse 43, speaking of the times when violence would come upon them. “For the days will come”, show that He was obviously speaking of the future, not the present. This matches the prophecies in Revelation concerning the end times when the antichrist will make war against the Lamb (Jesus) –

"These will wage war against the Lamb , and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14.

Those who make war with Christ in Revelation 17:14 correspond to the enemies in Luke 19:27, those who hated Him in verse 14. What we see is an example of such persons who hate Jesus and do not desire for Him to reign over them in Luke 19:47.

As we can see, by allowing the text to be read in its entirety, the notion that Jesus is slaying people in the gospels is duly refuted. On the contrary He is weeping over Jerusalem and coming to them in the form of a slave to save them who are lost.

It should be mentioned that a Muslim has no position to condemn the battle of Armageddon as unnecessary violence by Jesus for 2 simple reasons:

1. It is the enemies of Christ who initiate the war (Rev 17:14)
2. Islam itself teaches a violent end-times scenario as well:

As per point 2 above, we read:

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159)

We note the reference to Surah 4:159 mentioned above:
“There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them”

Putting Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657 together with Surah 4:159, we find that apparently Jesus is going to kill Jews and Christians in the last day. If the muslim has a problem with end times wars in Revelation, then they will have to throw out Bukhari and the Quran.
Not surprisingly, Deedat uses more verses from the bible as He continues to paint a violent picture of Jesus. Let us take a look at them:

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD." (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION." (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51”

Let us first address Matthew 10:34. I provide the surrounding context:

10:8 "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
10:9 "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,
10:10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
10:11 "And whatever * city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.
10:12 "As you enter the house, give it your greeting.
10:13 "If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.
10:14 "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
10:15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
10:17 "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;
10:18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake , as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.
10:20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
10:21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
10:22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.
10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master.
10:25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household !
10:26 "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
10:27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.
10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable * to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent ? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
10:31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
10:33 "But whoever * denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
10:38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
10:39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
10:40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.
10:41 "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
10:42 "And whoever * in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

We note from verses 8-10, that rather than being a slaughter mission, the disciples are taught to heal people and give things freely to them. Does this sound like something you do to people you are fighting?

The disciples are taught to go into a house and give it their blessing. And what of those homes that do not receive them? Kill them? No, they are taught simply to take back their blessing, shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next (verses 13-14). In fact, the consequences will come to that city not on the day of preaching but on the day of judgement (verse 15).

We reacquaint ourselves with verse 16 showing that the disciples are to be as innocent as doves. That does not sound like killing to me. In fact, it describes the opposers as wolves, not the disciples.

The verses never instruct the disciples to kill anyone. It does comfort them however by telling them not to fear those who can kill them physically, but rather to fear God who can destroy the soul. (verse 28)

What then did Jesus mean when He said that He would bring a sword if it doesn’t mean that He encouraged His disciples to engage in violence? Well there are 2 possible interpretations that could fit:

1. Jesus was speaking of the spiritual sword, which is His word (Hebrews 4:12) which was to be brought through the preaching of the gospel.
2. Jesus was speaking of the consequences of having the gospel announced, i.e. that the sword (physical) would be brought against the disciples by their opposers who would kill them.
As for Luke 12:49-51, these passages are not teaching that Jesus will slaughter people with a sword.

12:49 "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled !
12:50 "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished !
12:51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth ? I tell you, no, but rather division;

Verse 50 talks about Jesus desiring to undergo baptism. Why would that be? Was He not already baptised in Luke 3:21? Why does He mention being baptized in 12:50? Christ here was talking about His death. He mentions this in Mark 10:38 which reads:

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ?"

Jesus spoke these words to James and John after they asked the Lord if they could sit with Him on His left and right side in the glory of his kingdom. In this verse He not only mentions the baptism, but the cup. When we put this together with His prayer to the Father in Gethsemane for the cup to pass from Him, we see clearly that this is talking about death, about martyrdom. When we look therefore at 12:49-51 in this light, we see:

(1) Jesus was determined to go to the cross.
(2) His ministry was leading up to this climatic point which would ultimately bring great persecution, great division, between those who follow Him and those who reject Him.
(3) His followers could expect to follow in the path of His death.

But we are still left with the fire in verse 49. What could it mean that Jesus wanted to cast fire upon the earth? I believe this is referring to His desire to pour out His spirit upon all flesh. We see this prophesied in Joel 2:28 -

"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

We see the fulfilment of this in Acts 2:2-4 -

2:2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
2:3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.
2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Again, by allowing all of scripture to speak, we do not need to force an idea onto the text which is foreign. Jesus prepared His followers for martyrdom, but never commanded to kill. His desire to create division was to call His true seekers out to follow Him. And His desire to cast fire upon the earth, was not to commit some form of pyromania, but rather the pouring out of His Spirit upon His people to cause them to spread the word of God with all boldness.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

Royal Son said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

In part eight, we again addressed the allegations of Deedat, who attempts to paint a violent, bloodthirsty picture of Jesus Christ. We saw that Deedat gave verses out of context, ignoring the nature of the parables given and the times they were referring to. We saw that Jesus taught his disciples that they would face martyrdom, which indeed they did. Keep in mind, Deedat has been speaking at length now on just about anything but the crucifixion itself.

Having exhausted his arguments against the New Testament, Ahmed Deedat now turns his attention to the Old Testament. Let us read what Deedat has to say.

“In view of these solemn pronouncements and his repeated vitriolic outbursts against the learned men of his time, if the sword of Peter had prevailed, we would have witnessed a massacre without compunction, equal to that of his ancestor Joshua (meaning Jehova — Saviour)2 who utterly destroyed all that was in Jericho:
"both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the SWORD." (HOLY BIBLE) Joshua 6:21”
According to Deedat, the Jihad Jesus was going to fight would have been equal to that of Joshua. In other words, Jesus and his followers would have slaughtered the whole city, with two swords? Jesus couldn’t overcome a band of men with Judas, and yet he plans to wipe out an entire city? Deedat says, “if only Peter’s sword had prevailed.” But wasn’t Jesus the one who said “Do you not think I can summon more than twelve legions of angels at my command?” The more Deedat tries to build up his fanciful story, the more it falls apart.

Deedat continues:

“And the Gospel writers would not have been slow in putting words into the mouth of Jesus, word for word, as fulfilment of prophecies VATICINIUM EX EVENTU (prophecies after the event) as recorded3 of his "father" (?) David.
1. Means to KILL. Breaking the commandment — "Thou shalt not kill. — (Exodus 20:13)

2. Joshua: a type of Christ, says C.I. Scofield, D.D. in his Bible commentary.
3. His "father's" record: 'The conquered Ammonites he treated with even greater ferocity, tearing and hewing some of them in pieces with harrows, axes, and saws; and roasting others in brick-kilns". Maitlands comment on 2 Samuels Chs. 8 to 12 in "Jewish Literature and Modern Education" - (page 21)”

Here Deedat is accusing Joshua of breaking the law. In his discussion of the gospel accounts, he is accusing Jesus of wanting to do the same. Specifically, we are talking about the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

The law is forbidding the sin of murder. However, clearly the law taught that those who violated the law were to be put to death. To kill does not automatically mean to murder. In fact many countries today have an equivalent punishment for serious violation of the law, i.e. the death penalty, which is not murder. Since God as the author of life and taker of life, as well as the law giver, has every right to punish justly by death, those who commit grave sin, we cannot call God a murderer. Indeed we know that the Qur’an teaches killing:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.- Surah 9:5 (YUSUF ALI)

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. – Surah 2:191 (YUSUF ALI)

And yet would the Muslim accept that these verses advocate murder? Well, some within the extremist sects such as Wahabi, but generally, Muslims would say that these verses do not teach that killing is equated with murder and that murder is permissible in Islam.

Is Joshua a type of Christ? Yes. Joshua defeated God’s enemies in the Old Testament by the sword. Jesus defeated Satan upon the cross. Jesus also subdued His religious opponents by the word of God. Never once in the New Testament do we see Jesus using violence of any kind let alone teach it as an acceptable practice.

As for the Ammonites in 2 Samuel chapters 8 -12, they were people who worshipped the false deity Molech, through child sacrifices with fire. Incidentally this is the same God worshipped by the Canaanites. God had every right to judge the Canaanites and Ammonites for their wicked sins, whether directly or indirectly through His people.

The next segment from Deedat is basically a recap of his previous arguments which have already been thoroughly refuted:

The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. The sabre-rattling in the Garden had proved abortive. As there is a reward for success, likewise there is a price for failure. The odds are heavy! Hence the trial, the tribulation, the turmoil and the sweat and blood.
With heavy hands, the Roman soldiers dragged Jesus (pbuh) from Gethsemane to Annas, and from Annas to Caiphas the High Priest, and on to the Sanhedrin as directed by the Jews, for trial and execution.
Whilst Jesus was being manhandled and buffeted towards his doom, where were his heroes who were beating their breasts with the war-cry: "Master, we are prepared to die for you. Master, we are prepared to go to prison for you!" ? St. Mark, the first of the Gospel writers, un-ashamedly and without any apology reveals:
The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament could not find a similar dastardly desertion in the Jewish Bible1 to fulfill prophecy. If there was, they would have been quick to exploit it.“
Deedat expresses further hatred towards Christians:

“In a debate between Islam and Christianity, on SABC T.V. one of the participants, claiming to be "reborn", gloated over the word DESERTION. He articulated the word with such relish —D-E-S-E-R-T-I-O-N — which must have left a taste of triumph in the mouth of the cultists, instead of the bitterness of shame and defeat. The Bible-thumpers have developed a new sickness of glamorising despicability and ignominy. Everyone, male or female, of these cultists, will not fail to relate their peccadillos, their adulteries and bestialities, their drinkings and druggings. It appears that one must have been part of the dregs of humanity to become a candidate for this "born again" cult. “
Notice how he associates Christians with the worst kind of evil. It reminds me of some comforting words in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 5:

11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Finally, we come to the trials of Jesus. We are now in Chapter 6, page 18 of Deedat’s work “Crucifixion or Crucifiction”. We have seen a lot of words, a lot of claims, a lot of insults, but very little substance. Deedat writes:

In the history of the world, there is no parallel of such a contemptible betrayal. From the beginning to the end, Jesus (pbuh) received the most shabby response from his chosen ones. Professor Momerie succinctly sums up the "Disciples" and their response to the Master:

I see nothing here to argue with. I would agree that the disciples indeed constantly misunderstood that ways of Jesus and went against His ways. Notice the words quoted by Deedat: “anything and everything that was incompatible with His great plan.” What was this great plan? It was to become the Saviour, providing salvation through His death upon the cross.

Wanting to add insult to injury, Deedat attempts to show how superior Mohammed was to Jesus:

If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Influential Man in History" - Michael M. Hart;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Successful of all Religious Personalties" - Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Leader of all Times" - Jules Masserman in the "TIME" Magazine;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Man that ever Lived" - Lamartine in his "History of the Turks";
THEN IT CAN BE CLAIMED WITH JUSTIFICATION THAT Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of all of God’s Messengers".
Despite the fact that Mohammed’s success has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, we briefly address each claim:

Most influential? Jesus Christ is God. Considering He created the entire universe, came in the flesh, has 66 Divine books which speak uniquely and extensively about Him, changed the world calendar, influenced world culture, influenced world politics, and has the largest number of followers in the world today, I would say He completely unequivocally outshines Mohammed.

Most successful? Mohammed is dead in his grave awaiting judgement. Jesus is alive, enthroned in heaven with all glory, having the name which is above any name and will return to judge all men INCLUDING Mohammed.

Greatest Leader?: Mohammed spread Islam by the sword. Jesus spread His message by peace and love.

Greatest Man? Jesus Christ was Sinless. Mohammed had to repent more than 70 times a day for His sins. Jesus died for sinners to save them. Mohammed killed those who opposed Him.

There is no comparison between Jesus Christ and Mohammed.

Deedat writes:

“The disciples of Jesus always misunderstood him. His nation, the Jews, always misrepresented his utterances, AND his so-called followers are always misinterpreting his teachings, even to this day. If Jesus were a Japanese instead of being a Jew, he would most assuredly have committed honourable "HARA-KIRI" (suicide) rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of his followers.”

It is most unusual indeed that Ahmed Deedat claims that Jesus would “most assuredly” have committed suicide rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of His followers. I find such a statement to be quite priceless. It seems that Deedat considers suicide to be most honourable simply for being rejected, and yet cannot accept Jesus being crucified willingly for the awesome purpose of redeeming man back to God. Truly remarkable.

In the next post, we will get into the trial itself. It has taken us a long time to get there, and I appreciate everyone who is following this through with me. I hope that this series is opening your eyes to see the kind of apologist Ahmed Deedat was. With no intended disrespect for the dead, I would say that his work can be dismissed by anyone that has a reasonable level of discernment.

God bless you all,
Royal Son

XIA said...

According to Jewish standards these are the issues with jesus so called sacrifice

1. No Split Hooves(take the human sacrifice Out of equation only clean animals were sacrificed)
2. Sacrifice should be Done by Priest(not the case with jesus crucifixion)
3. Unblemished (Jesus was Beaten)
4. Within Temple (Again not the case)
5. Not by Crucifixion (a Cursed way and sacrifice not done like that)
6. Blood should be Sprinkled on Altar in Temple (didnt happened)
7. Death should be by Loos of Blood thats why it is called Blood Sacrifice (again not the case)
8. Passover Lamb was not even Sin Offering
9. Blood Sacrifice (Chatat) is for unintentional Sins
10. in Blood sacrifice death should be through Blood Loss again not the case here.
11. that sin sacrifice was only for sin till that time when sacrifice was made not for future sins.
12. Passover lamb was not a guilt or sin Offering (Lamb it self was dinning on the table) ;)

Fernando said...

XIA said: «According to Jewish standards these are the issues with jesus so called sacrifice»...

1) are they the samme probllems muslims habe with Jesus' real sacriffice?

2) Iff not, whie are you reffering to them? Iff yes, why are you calling them the resuslt off "Jewish standards"?

3) Before giving you a complete unswer to your (?!?) list (?!?), could yoy present any avidence for your claimes?

unless you say anithing about 1), 2) and 3), I'll take your poste as a manifestation off lack of intelectual honestie...

by the waie (and I guess this iss a typicall muslime problem due to your mentality): this post is not on teh soteriological aspect off Jesus's dead, but rather on it's historical aspect... do you habe anything to saie on this late subjecte? no? whie not?

Anthony Rogers said...

Very good Fernando. I was tempted to answer each of Xia's points, but I will wait and see what Xia has to say to your comments.

Fernando said...

Semper... yep... lett's waite to see what XIA does since he has entered this thread through the "back doore"... maybe it's some "one hit wonder", eben when I would reallie like to habe the chance to exchange some opiniones with him... let's wait and see...

Anthony Rogers said...

Okay, I can't help it; it looks like Xia's posting here was only intended as a hit-and-run, or a Muslim drive-by. Aside from Fernando's points, which Xia still needs to adress, I would add the following (among other things that could be said).

To be brief: many of Xia's points simply reduce the reality and significance of Christ's death to the shadows or pictures that illustrate or reveal it in advance in the Old Testament.

In light of this, I wonder if Xia would agree with a person who said that he is is flat and two-dimensional because that person was looking at a snap-shot of Xia. If not, why not? After all, this is just what he has done in the case of Old Testament symbolism.

Xia's comments look like a great topic for a new thread: "Islamic Reductionism", if I might coin a new term.