Wednesday, March 25, 2009

William Lane Craig vs. Shabir Ally: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"

Here's a video of William Lane Craig's recent debate with Shabir Ally at McGill University.

30 comments:

NPazar said...

I was a bit disappointed with Ally, i don't think he came to debate, since his opening speech was more of a dialogue. Even though later in the debate, Ally sharpened up a little bit...

Craig's case for Jesus' death on the cross was weak, though his other points were quite strong (empty tomb, burial account and so forth). Other than appealing to authority "most scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross", Craig had no corroborating evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross, other than of course that "even most sceptical scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross". No medical theory can adequately explain what caused the death of Jesus on the cross, and circumstantial evidence can be given that Jesus might have not died on the cross, such as; Pilates doubt in Mark, Jesus' hanging on the cross for few hours, Jesus' legs weren't broken, Jesus was more likely tied rather nailed to the cross as recent data suggests (a crucified man at Giv'at ha-Mivtar as suggested by Joe Zias).

Ally's appeal to a death/vindication/exaltation motif was a good way to avoid resurrection was language, but his argument was overall underdeveloped.

Craig seemed to have been quite prepared on the Qur'anic exegesis of verse 157 (even quoting Kenneth Cragg!), unfortunately, he did not allow other competing interpretations...

Overall, i think Ally did much better in the first debate (some 6-7 years ago) on the resurrection than the last one. In the first debate, Ally attacked Craig's position directly which even surprised Craig...

Unknown said...

I felt like this debate was a draw. Each opponent had refutations to the others' points.

Fernando said...

NPazar said: «No medical theory can adequately explain what caused the death of Jesus on the cross»

Are you kidding? Here's something to you:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/j06-04crucifixion.pdf

Nakdimon said...

Craig's case for Jesus' death on the cross was weak, though his other points were quite strong (empty tomb, burial account and so forth). Other than appealing to authority "most scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross", Craig had no corroborating evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross, other than of course that "even most sceptical scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross". No medical theory can adequately explain what caused the death of Jesus on the cross, and circumstantial evidence can be given that Jesus might have not died on the cross, such as; Pilates doubt in Mark, Jesus' hanging on the cross for few hours, Jesus' legs weren't broken, Jesus was more likely tied rather nailed to the cross as recent data suggests (a crucified man at Giv'at ha-Mivtar as suggested by Joe Zias).

I am shocked at the analysis. “Craig’s case for Jesus’ death on the cross was weak”? Craig had no corroborating evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross”?

We have numerous statements that he died on the cross from the ancient history. NO ONE believed that he didn’t die on the cross, accept some Gnostic heretics, who didn’t even believe that Yeshua had a body. But the eyewitnesses were clear: He died and was buried. The onus is on the sceptic to prove that he did not die. Not on the affirming position that he did. There is simply no record of people surviving crucifixion. There is one instance from Josephus, who pleaded for three friends of him to be taken off of the cross when undoubtedly still alive. After they were taken off, they got the best medical treatment that Rome had to offer. Yet, two died instantly and the third died some time after that because of the injuries. Yeshua received NO medical treatment in any way shape or form. And we are still to believe that he survived the crucifixion? Based on what grounds, except for theological bias? Let’s look at the futile circumstantial evidence against the death by crucifixion:

Pilates’ doubt in Mark: Pilate doubted that he already died. But notice what Pilate does. He tells the Centurion to check if he really died. The Centurion checks it and makes sure that he was dead. What reason, other than hyper-scepticism because of some agenda, do you have to doubt that the Centurion messed up? I would like to know. Notice how everyone preys on the report of Mark that Pilate was amazed that Yeshua was already dead. However, Marks account, rather than sheds doubt on the matter, gives us the certainty that he really was dead. Because Pilate checked it out and Marks account has the Centurion confirming the dead of Yeshua, making it sure that he was dead. If Pilate was uninterested in the death of the Messiah, as Ally suggested, and really wanted to spare him, he would have shown no interest in checking it out. He would have just left it as it was. He didn’t tell the Centurion to check if Yeshua was still alive, but to check if he was really dead!

Second, how do you think that a person comes off of the cross? The nails don’t come out! So one is ripped off of the cross. This surely would have caused a greater wound in the hands than there already was, which made it impossible to be healed three days later during the post mortem appearances.

The fact that Yeshua only hung on the cross for a few hours is also no reason to doubt his death by crucifixion. Just because sometimes people were on the cross for much longer than a few hours doesn’t mean that this has to be the case with Yeshua.

The comment that Yeshua told the disciples to touch the wounds in his hands show crucifixion with nails and not with ropes. To claim otherwise is to disregard the testimony of eyewitnesses just because there might have been a case that someone was tied to the cross with ropes once. Recent data doesn’t suggest tying to the cross.

The breaking of the legs wasn’t necessary, because he was already dead. The text says it explicitly. So to argue that there was no breaking of the legs and therefore he might not have died is nonsensical, since there was no reason to break the legs because he was dead. It is actually the other way around: If he wasn’t dead, they would have broken the legs.

Bottom line: There is just no record of Romans messing up when it comes to killing a person due to crucifixion. They succeeded all the time. Yet for apparent reasons, when it comes to Yeshua, Muslims feel that all of a sudden in that one instance, Romans messed up in every possible way one can imagine. They build their case on a series of highly improbable scenarios, which makes their case highly improbable, if not, nearly impossible.


Ally's appeal to a death/vindication/exaltation motif was a good way to avoid resurrection was language, but his argument was overall underdeveloped.

Ally’s case stunk. Ally always claims that a dying Messiah is contradictory. Contradictory to what? And contradictory to whom? Shabir should cut the nonsense. Jews believed in at least two Messiahs: Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah ben David. The first was to be a suffering Messiah, just like Yosef suffered in Genesis, who would die in battle and the second would be the reigning Messiah, just like David, who would be king over Israel. The concept of the Messiah ben Yosef nails Shabir Ally’s claims about a Messiah dying being a contradiction in terms. His argument wasn’t just underdeveloped, it was flawed to begin with.

His argument of vindication is also wanting. As dr Craig points out, it is too little too late in Islam. He is already exposed to shame and humiliation. To think that he is vindicated by appearing dead and secretly being whisked away into heaven without any witnesses at all is ludicrous and unappealing. How does that vindicate him at all? See, Shabir is worried about the Messiah dying on the cross and appearing to be accursed in the eyes of the people, yet, he gives an alternative where the Messiah still remains accursed in the eyes of the people. Shabir appeals to the Scriptural reference that says “cursed is he who hangs on the tree”. Shabir takes this to mean that only one who DIED on the tree is accursed. But that is NOT what the text says. The text says that the one who HANGS on the tree is cursed. So if Shabir will argue for a crucifixion where the Messiah hangs on the wood, then he is STILL accursed! The only way for God to unambiguously vindicate the prophet he loves, is to do something that unmistakably is an act of God’s support in favour of the accused one: Resurrection!

Shabir also tries to appeal to emotions by claiming that the Father sending his Son to die is cruel. But Shabir acts as if this is something the Father forced the Son to do. It is the Son who freely laid down his own life in order to take it back. As a human being I would not allow my son to die for others, because I simply don’t have the power to raise him back to life. But if I had that power, I would have my son lay down his life, if he so chose to, in order to save many from a worse fate. In Christianity, the death of the Messiah isn’t an arbitrary thing. It has a specific purpose. But if we go to the Islamic version of the crucifixion, we have a dilemma. Why would God have his prophet go through the agony of crucifixion if it has no purpose other than trick people that he died? There is simply no purpose why God would allow the Messiah to go through hours of excruciating pain and humiliation. To have your beloved prophet go through agony without any purpose whatsoever, without him wanting to go through this agony and then claim that you have vindicated him before the people, by secretly raising him to heaven from the tomb without any witness whatsoever, tricking his disciples, who spent years of their lives to follow him and have them believe in a lie, resulting in the deception of billions after them, being a thorn in the eyes of not only Allah but every Muslim on the planet since the start of Islam. All this for what? If Shabir wants to talk about cruelty, this is it!

Craig seemed to have been quite prepared on the Qur'anic exegesis of verse 157 (even quoting Kenneth Cragg!), unfortunately, he did not allow other competing interpretations...

And Dr. Craig has a point when he says that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion to have ever happened. By arguing that the crucifixion did happen, Shabir contradicts the entire thing. ALL scholars of Islam say that it didn’t happen, including Ibn Abbas, the contemporary of Muhammad. Although there are different reports of Ibn Abbas in different sources, NOT ONE of the different reports accept the crucifixion to have happened, still contradicting the position of Shabir Ally. Shabir clearly has tried to find a way out of the overwhelming amount of historical data that testifies against the Qur’an’s denial of the crucifixion, and has fed his scholars to the sharks. But what he ended up with still is without substance.

In addition, the Islamic position lacks explanatory scope. It doesn’t account for the origin of the beliefs of the disciples. What made those disciples think that Yeshua had resurrected from the dead if not the beliefs that he died and appeared alive to them afterwards? And since this is the beliefs of the original disciples, this means that Allah tricked those disciples, who tried to follow the Messiah into thinking that he died on the cross and rose from the dead and later blames them for believing what he made to appear so to them and flinging them into hell for it. Only an actual event of the death and resurrection of the Messiah will account for the origin of their beliefs and the fact that they were willing to die for this testimony.


Overall, i think Ally did much better in the first debate (some 6-7 years ago) on the resurrection than the last one. In the first debate, Ally attacked Craig's position directly which even surprised Craig...

Oh, in that debate Shabir did even worse. I find the Islamic explanation very wanting, unappealing and dishonest altogether.

For instance, Shabir claims that the proof of the resurrection is not convincing, although the resurrection is the only hypothesis that supports all the facts surrounding the event, as dr Craig already explained. Shabir also claimed this in his debate with Mike Licona. But notice the complete upside-down reasoning. According to Shabir, in spite the overwhelming testimony of the disciples, who were eyewitnesses, the multiple attestations to his death and resurrection, the evidence is not convincing. The testimony concerning these events are abundant. But Shabir believes in the virgin birth, doesn’t he? Although there is significantly less testimony of the virgin birth in the New Testament, much much less than there is about the death and resurrection. Yet, he accepts the testimony of the virgin birth, with virtually no evidence or testimonies about it, but rejects the testimonies of the death and resurrection in spite of the abundance of testimonies that we find about it. Upon what consistent basis, other than theological bias does Shabir accept the virgin birth but rejects the death and resurrection?

Allah must have been very busy confusing the people in the first century.

Nakdimon

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

But how do you expect us otherwise to prove the historical death of Jesus? There is much more evidence that Jesus died than for the Qur'anic proposition.

Even the resurrection of Jesus cannot be wholly historically denied.

1. Jesus predicted his own death prior to his death;

2. His disciples witnessed to his prediction and his death, based upon a) his predictions, b) his death and c) their dialogue with Jesus after the resurrection.

3. There where others, such as the women and disciples who were not part of the twelve who witnessed the event also.

4. The event was later supported by the apostolic successors who verified the testimony of the eyewitnesses and new the eyewitnesses.

5. The Jewish people, the Romans and the Jerusalem multitude witnessed his death and suffering.

Based upon all this historians logical accept the fact that Jesus died.

We may even point out that the account of Jesus life was written down no later than 30-50 years after his resurrection, which is far to less a time-span for myth and fabrication to be inserted. However, since Allah simply deceived the world to believe that Jesus died, we are not considering myths anyway. But then the problem comes up: how come the apostles and the Christians in 30-70 AD verify his death and resurrection rather than the Qur'an proposition?

If Muslims are gona claim that something as logical as Jesus' death is false, then the burden is upon the muslim to prove otherwise.

I have heard and read the arguments of Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally and Sakir Naik who tend to point to a number of New Testament passages out of context and even misinterpret their meanings. These arguments are more embarrasing than convincing.

The only way for Muslims to present any historical pointers for their opinion is probably to draw upon the early Gnostic views.

But then another problem appears. Namely that the Gnostics ussually believed that Jesus did not die because he was fully divine and spiritual, hence he did not enter the world in flesh (1 John 4); this was based upon typical Hellenistic-Platonic dualism.

It is probably from the Gnostics that the Qur'anic author draws his conclusion, but the muslim needs to grasp the details here.

Even Barth Ehrman the favorit of muslims believes strongly that Jesus died, he nevertheless assumes that Gnosticism entered soem Jewish factions from a mixture of Judaism and Hellenism. This seems to be the most obvious reason how the early idea of Jesus not dying entered the Christian debate.

If the Qur'an promotes the Gnostic view it relies about a foundational thought that Jesus entered the world and sojourned on the earth without flesh. Hence many gnostics doubted the virgin birth, his death and his resurrection. The Qur'an seems to pick and choose from the previous ideas: Jesus was born by a virgin, but Jesus did not die. Also muslims need to explain the lack of explicit information in the Qur'an. If we are honest in our conclusion, the Qur'anic description is confusing, it portrays God as a deceiver, and proposes that the Jews, the Romans and the Apostles all believed that Jesus died. Later the apostles of Jesus, those whom the Qur'an describes as victorious promoted the Biblical description of Jesus death, while a later faction of Gnostics promoted the Qur'anic view based upon Greek dualism retained the truth by defending a purely spiritual and divine Jesus.

This of course asks a number of questions concerning the integrity and logical nature of the Qur'an.
Clearly here the historicity of Jesus' death is historically dominating.

Furthermore it becomes a matter of confusion, when the Muslim agrees with the scholarship that rejects the resurrection as history, based upon the presumption that miracles are unreal (this was Ibn's argument), while at the same time these muslim missionaries reject a natural event such as Jesus' death, which scholars generally accept as factual.

Unknown said...

Hogan:1. Jesus predicted his own death prior to his death

And that proves he actually died? Lol! Jesus may have predicted his own death in the sense that he expected the Jewish leaders to make an attempt on his life given the popularity of the iconoclastic views he was espousing.

But it is interesting that you brought this point up. I distinctly remember Craig saying that most critical scholars view Jesus' predictions about his death as LATER INSERTIONS. He said this during his first debate with brother Ally on the resurrection.

Hogan:2. His disciples witnessed to his prediction and his death, based upon a) his predictions, b) his death and c) their dialogue with Jesus after the resurrection.

Are you for real? According to the Gospels, Jesus' disciples abandoned him after he was captured. They were not even present during the crucifixion, much less the resurrection.

Hogan:3. There where others, such as the women and disciples who were not part of the twelve who witnessed the event also.

As far as I recall, nothing is said about women disciples in Paul's epistles. Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark, which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig, tends to portray the marginalized as those who understood Jesus the best. Given the absence of earlier information, and the presence of theologically influenced additions, there is no good reason to believe that Jesus' women disciples witnessed the crucifixion event.

Hogan:4. The event was later supported by the apostolic successors who verified the testimony of the eyewitnesses and new the eyewitnesses.

Verification on the basis of hearsay makes for an implausible case.

Hogan:5. The Jewish people, the Romans and the Jerusalem multitude witnessed his death and suffering.

And yet, there is so little evidence corroborating Jesus' death on the cross.

Hogan:Based upon all this historians logical accept the fact that Jesus died.

Looks like their basis is quite weak.

Anonymous said...

So Craig had no proof that if you are nailed on a cross as an execution done by experts, you die.

Unfortunately for Ally, his explanation didn't do any better.

Fernando said...

Well... Ibn's backk... and withe a storme off nonsense... just some points (I'm berie bussy...):

#1: «I distinctly remember Craig saying that most critical scholars view Jesus' predictions about his death as LATER INSERTIONS»...

Wrong: he reffered, iff I can remember well, to "most liberal schoolars"... precisely those who denny/woulde deny everything in the qur'an... and he did not sayd he agread with them... those affirmations are based in erroneous presipositions, one off witch being they don't believe in the subrenatural...

#2: «And that proves he actually died? Jesus may have predicted his own death in the sense that he expected the Jewish leaders to make an attempt on his life given the popularity of the iconoclastic views he was espousing»...

what does this proves? this proves, in your own words, that He might have predicted his dead at the hand of thee jews... glad too see you admiting the qur'an may bee wrong...

but iff it was true He rightly predicted his dead, as He did, one must admitt he rightly predicted His ressurrection froom the deaf...

#3: «According to the Gospels, Jesus' disciples abandoned him after he was captured. They were not even present during the crucifixion, much less the resurrection»...

Ibn: are you justt a happy fool? No one is saying they saw (witnessed) Jesus' deaf ore ressurrection, butt rather they testified (gabe witnesess) they happened, and we don't habe anie reason to doubt in theyr wordes...

but we also habe many prrofs that Jesus's disciples were there at the moment off Jesus's deaf... eben some apostles crearly might habe benn there...

No one can be the witnesess off someone's ressurrection, Ibn... that's not an revitalization, a return to the previous liffe one had: it's a complete entering off his integral divine&human dimentions in Father's heart (iff we can say so...)...

#4: «As far as I recall, nothing is said about women disciples in Paul's epistles»...

and that proves whatt? paul did not reffred to many things, not because they were nott true, rather to the fact they were an evident aspect of the earlier cathequesis and, despitte, everyone should know tha existence off those womens... does any passage in the hadiths saye Muhammad had twoo hears? does thate allow us to doubte he did nott? that would explain manty thingues..

Paul eben dos not use the word disciple (male or female...) in his lettres...

#5: «Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark, which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig, tends to portray the marginalized as those who understood Jesus the best. Given the absence of earlier information, and the presence of theologically influenced additions, there is no good reason to believe that Jesus' women disciples witnessed the crucifixion event»...

here we habe a bunch off falsities inn a chain of ignorance:

1) Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark... there are a lott off things that were "firstely" said by Mark... that does not imply that they were invented or not known beforre... Many things about Muhhamud that you muslims admit as complete truth that were first said hundreds off years after Muhammad's dead... and those were clearly invented... not the case with Mark's testimony: no one woulde invent susch a thing in a time were women were dispised amd a Rabbi habing women as disciples was considered an offense...

2) «which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig»... do you reffer to the Bart Ehrman thatt does not grasp anything about the NT history? the same that, despite being a professor off religious studies, sayd he does nott know anything abouth islam and Muhammad's (or Uthman's) book? The same Ehrman that iff would aply is metodology to the qur'an would habe to say eberything in it is false? gald to see who're your strong academic suportores...

3) «and the presence of theologically influenced additions»... aditions to whatt? to what Paul had written? Poor Ibn... eberything someone writtes for the first time is an adition, not an invenntion... and the fact that vthose nwe aspects have a theological dimention does not deny it's historical truth...

#5: Verification on the basis of hearsay makes for an implausible case...

and here Ibn destroid ebery chain of tnasmition off muslims hadiths who follow this aspect:

Abu said HE HEARD from Zain that said HE HEARD from Abdullah that said said HE HEARD from Ibn that said said HE HEARD from Yahya that said said HE HEARD from Thabit that said HE HEARD from Nasir that said HE HEARD from Jalal that said HE HEARD from Yaqub that someone on the city oh Peshary had HEARD some traveler saying that HE HEARD from an eyewitness that Muhammad was an uneducated person...

Ibn... how far you can go in youre attempt to deny the truth that you eben deny your false religion...

#6: «there is so little evidence corroborating Jesus' death on the cross»...

how... you mean you wante to put on a balance, on the one hand, the historical evidencess for Jesus dead on the cross, and in the other onne, the lack off them? You have noot eben presented any true proof Jesus did noot dye on the cross... cann you start?

It has been so easy to deny your words... perhaps you shoulde do your HW before trying to deal with adults...

but Ibn... thankes for your post...

Anonymous said...

I saw the debate and I really enjoyed it. After all was said and done my confidence in the historicity of the resurrection was strong.

Shabir ally's crucifixion view is a good example of a muslim abandoning the absured trash of the quran and trying to step into reality instead. However accepting the crucifixion, he nails himself when he asserts Jesus survived. A view no serious scholar holds.

Good job Craig did exposing Shabir's position and backing up the Biblical statements regarding the resurrection of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

keith
www.keithtruth.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Ibn, it's obvious that non-christians don't believe Jesus was able to predict the future. But the same people will laugh at anyone who believes that Jesus wasn't crucified.

I think WLC won by a wide margin because Ally's alternative theories force him to hold an untenable theological position.

Also, Ally admitted that the Quran is in error because Jesus was crucified.

Royal Son said...

Ibn: "Hogan:1. Jesus predicted his own death prior to his death

And that proves he actually died? Lol! Jesus may have predicted his own death in the sense that he expected the Jewish leaders to make an attempt on his life given the popularity of the iconoclastic views he was espousing."


Here's the problem Ibn, if Jesus prophesied falsely concerning His death, then it would make Him a false prophet. If you want to take a position, don't take the Muslim position, because you can't consistently remain a muslim, believing that Jesus was a true prophet and accommodate a false prophecy given by Him.

Ibn: But it is interesting that you brought this point up. I distinctly remember Craig saying that most critical scholars view Jesus' predictions about his death as LATER INSERTIONS. He said this during his first debate with brother Ally on the resurrection.

Ibn, there are a number of problems with that theory:

1. The Old Testament prophesies the death of the Messiah (Isa 53 and others)

2. There is multiple attestation OUTSIDE of the New Testament from Non-Christian historians.

3. You cannot point to a SINGLE early manuscript which testifies against the crucifixion.

Ibn: Hogan:2. His disciples witnessed to his prediction and his death, based upon a) his predictions, b) his death and c) their dialogue with Jesus after the resurrection.

Are you for real? According to the Gospels, Jesus' disciples abandoned him after he was captured. They were not even present during the crucifixion, much less the resurrection.


You see, this is the problem with muslims. They take ONE VERSE for their proof (Mark 14:50), and don't bother to read on FOUR VERSES LATER (Mark 14:54) - It says "54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest." Did people Flee? Yes. Did people return? Obviously, as evidenced by verse 54.

Furthermore, this is not even at the scene of the crucifixion! This is simply at the scene of Jesus being arrested! A lot happens between there and the crucifixion.

Moreover, we have the 3 Marys at the cross: John 19:24-25 - "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."

John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) was also there (John 19:26-27):

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."

Don't forget Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross:

Mark 15:21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.

And the centurion who believed:

Mark 15:39 - And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

You have Peter, 3 Marys, John, Simon of Cyrene, and the centurion. That's at least 7 witnesses.

What I want you to tell us Ibn, is why you will demand witnesses from us (I just provided some for you), and yet you will accept the testimony of Mohammad who came 600 years later. Is eye-witness testimony necessary or not? Should we throw out Mohammad since he was not there ? I think that would be very reasonable.

I tell you what Ibn, bring to me YOUR eyewitnesses, and stack up their testimony against the witnesses we have. Then we can talk.

Ibn: Hogan:3. There where others, such as the women and disciples who were not part of the twelve who witnessed the event also.

As far as I recall, nothing is said about women disciples in Paul's epistles. Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark, which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig, tends to portray the marginalized as those who understood Jesus the best. Given the absence of earlier information, and the presence of theologically influenced additions, there is no good reason to believe that Jesus' women disciples witnessed the crucifixion event.


Here you go again, theologically influenced additions... Show me a SINGLE early manuscript which omits these alleged additions. I find it humorous that you will try to use Bart Ehrman in order to support your position. Bart Ehrman admits that the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of history.

Hogan:4. The event was later supported by the apostolic successors who verified the testimony of the eyewitnesses and new the eyewitnesses.

Verification on the basis of hearsay makes for an implausible case.


Ibn, would you call Surah 4:157 hearsay? If not, why not?

Ibn: Hogan:5. The Jewish people, the Romans and the Jerusalem multitude witnessed his death and suffering.

And yet, there is so little evidence corroborating Jesus' death on the cross.


No Ibn, there is a mountain of evidence. You are simply unwilling to receive it because your mind is programmed to obey the Qur'an no matter what it says. It's rather sad that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed that way.

Ibn:Hogan:Based upon all this historians logical accept the fact that Jesus died.

Looks like their basis is quite weak.


Hahahaha. Ibn, tell me sir, what is your background in New Testament Scholarship and History as a whole? I find it interesting that you can take a swipe at New Testament and Historical scholarship like that, especially considering that the overwhelming majority of Non-Christian Scholars and historians come to the same conclusions as Christians on the subject of crucifixion based upon the evidence.

Allah doesn't want you to accept the cross because it is the one thing that will bring you to your knees in repentance and humbly plead forgiveness for your sins, justify you, and make you a child of God.

Pray over this matter Ibn. On the day of judgement, you would be better to be clothed in the perfect righteousness of the lamb than in the filthy rags of your own self-righteousness.

And a quick word to our friends here, very sorry for the delay of
"Islam and the cross - part 10" but I'm working on it!

Fernando said...

Royal Son saide: «Is eye-witness testimony necessary or not?»...

if yes, then Muhammad's claimes he received rebelation from Gabriel cannot be true, since no one was there when he supposely reciebed his "rebelations"... to sad for islam...

Royal Son said...

Excellent point Fernando

Sepher Shalom said...

Keith --> "Shabir ally's crucifixion view is a good example of a muslim abandoning the absured trash of the quran and trying to step into reality instead. However accepting the crucifixion, he nails himself when he asserts Jesus survived. A view no serious scholar holds."

I find interesting that while most Muslims believe in the "substitution theory" most Muslim apologists seem to believe in the "swoon theory", where Yeshua survives the cross.

My take on that is that is an intentional tactic. Think about it. If you are making the Christian apologist try to argue and refute a position you know most of the Muslims watching don't even believe anyway, then what is in jeopardy for you? Even if you lose, you still win because the audience has heard your refutations of death by crucifixion, and all they have heard in response is a refutation of an interpretation they don't even believe in the first place.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:1. Jesus predicted his own death prior to his death

And that proves he actually died? Lol! Jesus may have predicted his own death in the sense that he expected the Jewish leaders to make an attempt on his life given the popularity of the iconoclastic views he was espousing.

Elijah replies:

Jesus being a prophet (which a muslim is supposed to believe in) actually presupposes that Jesus could predict his own death.

I know that you (Ibn) doubt miracles and resurrections based upon atheist presuppositions, but are you now doubting Jesus’ prophethood too Ibn?

Also, there is another slight fallacy in your theory here, if Jesus merely anticipated that the Jews would kill him, why did he clearly predict his suffering and death in explicit terms?

Ibn wrote:

But it is interesting that you brought this point up. I distinctly remember Craig saying that most critical scholars view Jesus' predictions about his death as LATER INSERTIONS. He said this during his first debate with brother Ally on the resurrection.

Elijah replies:

Funny, why do you drag atheist scholarship into this? I never based this upon atheist scholarship.

See, this is the difference between you and me, I am not depended upon atheist scholars and their methodologies in the same way muslims are.

Of course atheists scholars ascribe these are later insertions, otherwise they would have to consent to the probability of the supernatural.

But I was not even taken into account the views of critical scholars, I referred to the Gospels and they eyewitness account only.

I assume then that you agree with these scholars in refuting the ability of Jesus to refute the future.

Based on your methodology here Ibn I again wonder if you doubt the prophethood of Jesus.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:2. His disciples witnessed to his prediction and his death, based upon a) his predictions, b) his death and c) their dialogue with Jesus after the resurrection.

Are you for real? According to the Gospels, Jesus' disciples abandoned him after he was captured. They were not even present during the crucifixion, much less the resurrection.

Elijah replies:

You presume too much Ibn. John’s Gospel which you believe is a fabrication and which you presume predicts the arrival of Muhammad, states that John was present at his crucifixion, and so were some of his female disciples.

Neverethless, if neither John nor the women had been present, his death was still witnessed by multiple witnesses. This would be sufficient to the entire Jerusalem multitude and his disciples that he was dead.

Nevertheless, John was present, and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea sought to his burial, which certainly indicates that they were all present.

Indeed Jesus also had other disciples who are not mentioned but who very likely were present, such as John the elder and Aristion.

Another vital information is Simon of Cyrene (the man who carried the cross of Jesus), who Mark according to Peter or according to himself was the father of Alexander and Rufus, which Mark portrays as famous to the church in Rome.

Rufus was certainly a famous figure within the church in the first century.

You also seem to leave out the fact that Jesus instructed his disciples on various occasions and locations after his death over period of 40 days.

Hence to refute your argumentation:

1. The disicples did witness his prediction

2. The disciples (some of them) did witness his death and took care of his burial.

3. His disciples were instructed after his resurrection

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:3. There where others, such as the women and disciples who were not part of the twelve who witnessed the event also.

As far as I recall, nothing is said about women disciples in Paul's epistles. Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark, which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig, tends to portray the marginalized as those who understood Jesus the best. Given the absence of earlier information, and the presence of theologically influenced additions, there is no good reason to believe that Jesus' women disciples witnessed the crucifixion event.

Elijah replies:

As far as Paul’s letters are concerned he certainly refers to the same Jesus account we find in the Gospels, but not all of it.

That Paul does not refer to the women is hardly an indicator that the women were not witnesses to his death his resurrection.

Paul in 1 Corinthian 15 is focusin on the resurrection not his death. Here the references to the apostles are particulary of important as these were the once who articulated the information to the society.

However if the methodology and conclusion you present here is valid, how do you explain the fact that Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus?

Are we then to presume that the virgin birth was a later Christian fabrication?

Does that then mean that the Qur’an has plagiarized a later Christian fabrication?

Also based upon Ehrman do you then assume that the women understood Jesus better than his disciples whom the Qur’an describes as victorious and faithful to the end.

It seems here that you reject both the virgin birth and the Qur’anic description of the apostles.

I get more and more surprised about you Ibn:

Firstly Jesus could not resurrect because supernatual things don’t happen.

Secondly, you reject the ability of Jesus to predict future, hence you deny his prophethood.

Thirdly based on your methodology I assume that you deny his virgin birth, since matters that Paul left out and Christian wrote down later on are bound to be fabrication.

Fourthly, which indicates that you presume that Paul is the most faithful piece of information and hence even more faithful than Mark and the rest of them. This will not go very well along with the majority of muslim apologists.

Fifthly based on Ehrman you presuppose that the apostles failed their task, contrary to what the Qur’an teaches.

Either you are not a muslim Ibn, or your use of sources makes you look pretty, I would say confused minded.

Mind also that Ehrman in his debate with Craig particularly rejected the resurrection due to his naturalistic belief, not because historical facts in itself refutes it. Ehrman does not believe in the resurrection since his mind tells him that resurrections do not happen according to the laws of nature.
I know from your previous posts Ibn, that this is a view you an Ehrman share. Which is why I doubt your honest belief about your own religion.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:4. The event was later supported by the apostolic successors who verified the testimony of the eyewitnesses and new the eyewitnesses.

Verification on the basis of hearsay makes for an implausible case.

Elijah replies:

You have not done your homework. None of this was simply hearsay. Eyewitnesses were there to verify and control the oral transmission and the writings up to 90 AD. After that apostolic disciples were controlling the information until 140 AD.

Furthermore, I think now you are clearly shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you now saying that we cannot trust the Qur'an since its information was simply transmitted or recorded by people?

Your entire methodology Ibn is so plain stupith, illogical and inconsistent with your own belief that I simply fail to comprehend whether I am debating a muslim or an atheist!

If you are correct here, you are saying that we cannot trust Uthman, Ali or any of the followers of Muhammad and their transmission of the Qur'an.

So there we have it brothers and sisters, Ibn does not even believe in the reliability of his own book, based on his own methodology.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:5. The Jewish people, the Romans and the Jerusalem multitude witnessed his death and suffering.

And yet, there is so little evidence corroborating Jesus' death on the cross.

Elijah replies:

What????

lets go over it again.

His death is predicte prior to his death by Jesus himself.

Jesus is arrested and crucified.

Present are Jews, Romans and a large multitude and male and female disciples who also sort out his burial.

After his resurrection he personally instructs his disciples for forty days.

The disciples preach and teach this and instruct this information to their own disciples.

And you say there is no evidence.

Lets consider an analogy:

A certain invididual is hanged

Present are his executioners, accussers, friends, family and a crowd.

The man dies

His family take him down and bury him

Now all of a sudden someone exclaims that there is not evidence that he died

You need to listen to yourself.

Ridicolous Ibn!

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:Based upon all this historians logical accept the fact that Jesus died.

Looks like their basis is quite weak.

Elijah replies:

Read the above

You sound plainly embarrasing, inconsistent and confused

Royal Son said...

Hook, line, and sinker.

Well done guys.

Unknown said...

Wow! Look at the number of responses I got. Due to a lack of time, I'll limit my responses to Fernando for today.

Fernando:Wrong: he reffered, iff I can remember well, to "most liberal schoolars"... precisely those who denny/woulde deny everything in the qur'an... and he did not sayd he agread with them... those affirmations are based in erroneous presipositions, one off witch being they don't believe in the subrenatural...

You are just as guilty as these so called liberal scholars in that whereas they don't presuppose supernaturalism, you presuppose the truthfulness of Christian dogma. Besides, you have committed the genetic fallacy by rejecting a claim simply because of how it originates.

Fernando:what does this proves? this proves, in your own words, that He might have predicted his dead at the hand of thee jews... glad too see you admiting the qur'an may bee wrong...

How does my claim contradict the Quran?

Fernando:but iff it was true He rightly predicted his dead, as He did, one must admitt he rightly predicted His ressurrection froom the deaf...

The consequent in your argument has no relationship to the antecedent. Moreover, you are being circular by presupposing the veracity of the New Testament accounts.

Fernando:Ibn: are you justt a happy fool? No one is saying they saw (witnessed) Jesus' deaf ore ressurrection, butt rather they testified (gabe witnesess) they happened, and we don't habe anie reason to doubt in theyr wordes...

If none of Jesus' disciples saw the actual crucifixion, then their testimony W.R.T Jesus' death on the cross is of little value. Besides, given that the Gospels are a product of anonymous writers, we are not even sure if they actually contain the testimonies of the disciples.

Fernando:but we also habe many prrofs that Jesus's disciples were there at the moment off Jesus's deaf... eben some apostles crearly might habe benn there...

What kind of proofs?

Fernando:and that proves whatt? paul did not reffred to many things, not because they were nott true, rather to the fact they were an evident aspect of the earlier cathequesis and, despitte, everyone should know tha existence off those womens... does any passage in the hadiths saye Muhammad had twoo hears? does thate allow us to doubte he did nott? that would explain manty thingues..

This is an argument ad hominem of the circumstantial kind.

Fernando:1) Their role begins in the Gospel of Mark... there are a lott off things that were "firstely" said by Mark... that does not imply that they were invented or not known beforre... Many things about Muhhamud that you muslims admit as complete truth that were first said hundreds off years after Muhammad's dead... and those were clearly invented... not the case with Mark's testimony: no one woulde invent susch a thing in a time were women were dispised amd a Rabbi habing women as disciples was considered an offense...

What good reasons do we have for not believing that Mark's account of women finding an empty tomb is nothing but an attempt to theologically, and therefore, unhistorically glorify the marginalized in line with Jesus' teachings?

Fernando:2) «which as Bart Ehrman noted in his debate with William Lane Craig»... do you reffer to the Bart Ehrman thatt does not grasp anything about the NT history? the same that, despite being a professor off religious studies, sayd he does nott know anything abouth islam and Muhammad's (or Uthman's) book? The same Ehrman that iff would aply is metodology to the qur'an would habe to say eberything in it is false? gald to see who're your strong academic suportores...

Genetic fallacy.

Fernando:#5: Verification on the basis of hearsay makes for an implausible case...and here Ibn destroid ebery chain of tnasmition off muslims hadiths who follow this aspect

Tu qu quo.

Fernando:#6: «there is so little evidence corroborating Jesus' death on the cross»...
how... you mean you wante to put on a balance, on the one hand, the historical evidencess for Jesus dead on the cross, and in the other onne, the lack off them? You have noot eben presented any true proof Jesus did noot dye on the cross... cann you start?

I don't need to present proofs because Shabir Ally has already done that.

Nakdimon said...

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/full-report-from-william-lane-craigs-quebec-debating-tour/

This is how well Shabir did in the debate. He is repudiated by many Muslims because of his abandoning the orthodox views. It’s actually laughable. Shabir repudiates the orthodox views because he recognises that the Qur’anic position is untenable due to the historical data. But Muslims repudiate him because he repudiates the orthodox views and contradicts the Qur’an. Either way it is a sad prospect for the Muslims defending the Qur’anic position. The net is closing in, slowly but steadily.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I have to say that Ibn seems to circle around in the same illogical reasoning.

Ibn wrote:

If none of Jesus' disciples saw the actual crucifixion, then their testimony W.R.T Jesus' death on the cross is of little value.

Elijah replies:

I think we have refuted that already. There were indeed disciples present who witnessed the death of Jesus. John's Gospel (the favorite Gospel to Muslims) records that the disciple whom Jesus loved was present. So were a number of female disciples, including other male disciples.

However, this argument is inconsistent with the claims of Ibn and probably most muslims. They demand that the disciples should clearly witness every detail of Jesus crucifixion in order to prove the death of Jesus. While everyone else simply accepts that Jesus was scoraged, hanged, died and had a stick stung into his belly; clearly the man was dead.

What else can you expect?

But lets apply this same demand to the muslims, (pay attention everyone) can Ibn provide any passage in which Muhammad's followers clearly saw the angel Gabrial reveal the words of the Qur'an to Muhammad. Because if none of Muhammad's followers saw this process, why in in the whole wide earth should we believe it.

Ibn wrote:

Besides, given that the Gospels are a product of anonymous writers, we are not even sure if they actually contain the testimonies of the disciples.

Elijah replies:

This is the conclusion I read in most of the books I look into.

The claim is, the Gospels were anonymous so how can they be trustworthy.

There are a number of fallacies here.

Firstly muslims continually claim that the Injeel was God's revelead word, so it would be anonymous anyway.

Now it is amazing when the muslim find out that critical scholars actually agree, they simply go against their own claim for the nature of the original injeel and argue that the Injeel is untrustworthy since no authors are mentioned in the manuscripts.

Secondly, if the muslim is correct in his approach here I would also demand the Muslims to show me the name of Uthman or Zaid at least attached to the most ancient Qur'ans; and obviously such is not the case, hence we cannot trace these Qur'an's back to the original composition.

Thirdly, there is simply no evidence that the Gospels were anonymous in the first place. I have read tons of paper on this, and scholars never provide any clear evidence for the basis of this conclusion.

All I can think of is again the necessity of atheist thinkers to exclude apostolic authorship as it renders the Gospel account history and so the natural world-view is refuted.

I find it amazing that muslims yet again find such kind of reasoning acceptable.

The Gospel authorship was known by e.g. Irenaeus who knew Polycarp the disicple of John and a number of other disciples and eyewitnesses. Mark's Gospel and its authorship and Petrine source was confirmed in 150 AD by Justin Martyr who operated under a strict line of apostolic successors in Rome, a succession that reached back to Peter the apostle and Paul among others. Papias who writes in 80-100 AD records in the present tense information that was conveyed to him while the disciples of Jesus were still alive, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel, and Mark dicated his Gospel from the apostle Peter. While atheist scholars virtually hate and despise this information they have simply proven unable to refute it, unless you base your conclusion upon conjecture. Sanders even suggests that we reject all this data and simply emerge ourselves in the twenty century theories. Hence the critical method is simply historical but theoretical and even philosophical being based upon naturalism.

The bottom line is:

1) The apostles themselves knew who wrote the Gospels, 2)so did their disciples 3) and so did the early Christian community.

The claim that the name of an author has not been found in the earliest manuscripts is not a surprising at all, we simply do not possess the first cover of these manuscripts; furthermore such material hardly contained the name of the author; that particular information was ussually written on a label and attached to the scroll or codex. In fact one of the earliest codexes even contains the label with the name Matthew.

Hence Ibn

You have been refuted! Again!!!

Unknown said...

I just love Hogan's comically illogical responses.

Hogan:I think we have refuted that already. There were indeed disciples present who witnessed the death of Jesus. John's Gospel (the favorite Gospel to Muslims) records that the disciple whom Jesus loved was present. So were a number of female disciples, including other male disciples.

That's the point. It is John's Gospel that records the presence of Jesus' disciples during his crucifixion! Since the earlier Gospels don't record this (and it is highly improbable that the authors would consider this crucial event, if it did happen, too insignificant to mention), and John's Gospel is the last of all the Gospels to be written, and it is very tendentious, the probability that Jesus' death by way of crucifixion was witnessed by his followers is historically improbable.

Hogan:....everyone else simply accepts that Jesus was scoraged, hanged, died and had a stick stung into his belly; clearly the man was dead.

Everyone accepts, therefore its got to be true! This is an appeal to the majority-a fallacy.

Hogan:But lets apply this same demand to the muslims, (pay attention everyone) can Ibn provide any passage in which Muhammad's followers clearly saw the angel Gabrial reveal the words of the Qur'an to Muhammad. Because if none of Muhammad's followers saw this process, why in in the whole wide earth should we believe it.

This is a red herring and an argument ad hominem circumstantial. However, if providing an eye witness account of communication between Gabriel and Muhammad(saw) will shut your illogical mouth, then read the following:

My father, Umar ibn al-Khattab, told me: One day we were sitting in the company of Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) when there appeared before us a man dressed in pure white clothes, his hair extraordinarily black. There were no signs of travel on him. None amongst us recognized him. At last he sat with the Apostle (peace be upon him) He knelt before him placed his palms on his thighs and said: Muhammad, inform me about al-Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Al-Islam implies that you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and you establish prayer, pay Zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan, and perform pilgrimage to the (House) if you are solvent enough (to bear the expense of) the journey. He (the inquirer) said: You have told the truth. He (Umar ibn al-Khattab) said: It amazed us that he would put the question and then he would himself verify the truth. He (the inquirer) said: Inform me about Iman (faith). He (the Holy Prophet) replied: That you affirm your faith in Allah, in His angels, in His Books, in His Apostles, in the Day of Judgment, and you affirm your faith in the Divine Decree about good and evil. He (the inquirer) said: You have told the truth. He (the inquirer) again said: Inform me about al-Ihsan (performance of good deeds). He (the Holy Prophet) said: That you worship Allah as if you are seeing Him, for though you don't see Him, He, verily, sees you. He (the enquirer) again said: Inform me about the hour (of the Doom). He (the Holy Prophet) remarked: One who is asked knows no more than the one who is inquiring (about it). He (the inquirer) said: Tell me some of its indications. He (the Holy Prophet) said: That the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and master, that you will find barefooted, destitute goat-herds vying with one another in the construction of magnificent buildings. He (the narrator, Umar ibn al-Khattab) said: Then he (the inquirer) went on his way but I stayed with him (the Holy Prophet) for a long while. He then, said to me: Umar, do you know who this inquirer was? I replied: Allah and His Apostle knows best. He (the Holy Prophet) remarked: He was Gabriel (the angel). He came to you in order to instruct you in matters of religion. (Shahi Muslim, Hadith 1)

Regarding the anonymity of Gospels, Hogan wrote:

This is the conclusion I read in most of the books I look into.
The claim is, the Gospels were anonymous so how can they be trustworthy.There are a number of fallacies here.Firstly muslims continually claim that the Injeel was God's revelead word, so it would be anonymous anyway.Now it is amazing when the muslim find out that critical scholars actually agree, they simply go against their own claim for the nature of the original injeel and argue that the Injeel is untrustworthy since no authors are mentioned in the manuscripts.Secondly, if the muslim is correct in his approach here I would also demand the Muslims to show me the name of Uthman or Zaid at least attached to the most ancient Qur'ans; and obviously such is not the case, hence we cannot trace these Qur'an's back to the original composition.

These are all red herrings.

Hogan:Thirdly, there is simply no evidence that the Gospels were anonymous in the first place. I have read tons of paper on this, and scholars never provide any clear evidence for the basis of this conclusion. All I can think of is again the necessity of atheist thinkers to exclude apostolic authorship as it renders the Gospel account history and so the natural world-view is refuted.

Man, could you be any more wrong? There are conservative scholars who are just as adamant as their non-believing counterparts in admitting that the Gospels were authored anonymously. For example, N.T.Wright.

Hogan:The Gospel authorship was known by e.g. Irenaeus who knew Polycarp the disicple of John and a number of other disciples and eyewitnesses. Mark's Gospel and its authorship and Petrine source was confirmed in 150 AD by Justin Martyr who operated under a strict line of apostolic successors in Rome, a succession that reached back to Peter the apostle and Paul among others. Papias who writes in 80-100 AD records in the present tense information that was conveyed to him while the disciples of Jesus were still alive, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel, and Mark dicated his Gospel from the apostle Peter.

And this is what the scholars have been saying. Other than what prejudiced Church fathers who came onto the scene much later asserted, we have no indication of apostolic origins of these documents.

Hogan:Hence Ibn You have been refuted! Again!!!

I've been refuted? Where?!?

Anonymous said...

Ibn, there were numerous people around when Jesus died, yet you don't accept it.

No one was around when he spoke in the cradle, because it didn't happen.

Consistency?

Fernando said...

Ibn... on one hand, I'm bery glad you lost your time responding to me, an humble Christian; on the other hand, I'm bery sorrie for you...

knowing (?!?... I doubt it... your use of them in this example is appalying... you mix apples with oranges...) latin names does not make you anything better than someone who clearly don'y know what they are referring to...

all your points, as other habe evidenced, are full off mistakes...

calling my argumentation X when I pout your wordes in a mirror is calling your own arguments X... more: you cannot use an metholodogy agains the Bible, and refuse it when dealling with the qur'an... if you say: "I can't believe in the Bible because off Y"; you habe to apply Y in your aexamination of the qur'an...

so Ibn... I'll make it easy for you today:

a) what proff do you habe there were not disciples or apostles near Jesus when he died?

b) what proof do you habe Jesus did not predicted His dead and His ressurection?

c) what profs do you habe (I'm not erffering to Shabir Ally's theories... unless you are Shabir Ally...) to say Jesus did not die on the cross?

d) what proff do you habe that Mark made false interpolations?

e) what proof do you habe the NT is false?

f) what proof do you habe that Mark's account of women finding the sepuclre empty is only a theological adenda?

g) what proof do you habe that Jesus did not had women disciples...

since all these questions are cleraly evidenced in the Gospels against your position off doubt, I guess it's you, Ibn, that has to make an efford to explain your positions agains those evidences...

I'll be waiting... after your answer I'll respond to all your points... see you soon, and good HW...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

I just love Hogan's comically illogical responses.

Elijah replies:

Funny you mention it, so my responses are more comically illogical than yours.

Well...

You are the one who rejects Jesus’ resurrection since miracles don’t happen (and you are a muslim?).

But then again you refuse to accept such a logical factor as the death of Jesus’ which your favorite atheist scholars accept as a perfectly normal and reliable event.

I guess this is suffient for anyone who can reads that you are the one who stands out comically illogical.

In this last thread you refused to accept the Gospel’s due to transmission, being completely ignorant of the fact that the Qur’an itself was transmitted.

You are also the one claiming that Jesus predicted his death mistakenly since he mistakenly believed he would be killed.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:I think we have refuted that already. There were indeed disciples present who witnessed the death of Jesus. John's Gospel (the favorite Gospel to Muslims) records that the disciple whom Jesus loved was present. So were a number of female disciples, including other male disciples.

That's the point. It is John's Gospel that records the presence of Jesus' disciples during his crucifixion! Since the earlier Gospels don't record this (and it is highly improbable that the authors would consider this crucial event, if it did happen, too insignificant to mention), and John's Gospel is the last of all the Gospels to be written, and it is very tendentious, the probability that Jesus' death by way of crucifixion was witnessed by his followers is historically improbable.

Elijah replies:
What exactly is your point???

Funny, I have already dealt with all these points in my previous post, why don’t you read it again.

So what if the disciples were not referred to in the Synoptic Gospels; in what sense is that necessarily a evidence that they were absent.

You seem to follow the methodology of presuming that absence of information necessarily presumes that the particluar aspects which were omitted were absent within the event.

However to your information, Joseph of Aramatea was present in the Synoptic Gospels.

Luke 24 records to other disciples that were present in Jerusalem.

What is really funny here is that John’s Gospel is the favorite Gospel of Muslims.

For example in John 14 there is the reference to the councellor, the paraclete, which you muslims assume to be a prediction of Muhammad.

Now to use your analogy, why is the paraclete not mentioned in the earlier Gospels?

Why don’t you remain consistent with your approach and simply confess that the Qur’an when refers to the prediction of Muhammad is referring to later fabricated information, which then questions the divine authorship of the Qur’an.

Could you please elaborate on all this Ibn.

Why is it illogical for be to believe according to John’s Gospel that John was present at the resurrection even though this information was not included in the Synoptics, while you Muslims can praise the paraclete in John 14 as Muhammad when he is not mentioned in the Synoptics.

Do you get the point, your approach here is inconsistent?

And furthermore, your assumption that absent information necessarily rejects an aspect of an event is false too.

You seem also to be unaware of the overall discipleship structure, 1) the apostles, 2) the disciples and 3) the others who followed him.

Perhaps do some research on this.

This three group category still remained vital in the third century.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:....everyone else simply accepts that Jesus was scoraged, hanged, died and had a stick stung into his belly; clearly the man was dead.

Everyone accepts, therefore its got to be true! This is an appeal to the majority-a fallacy.

Elijah replies:

Ok, so its a majority fallacy???

In what sense is it a majority fallacy when they saw him die and saw him buried.

Are you then saying that when I see someone die and buried I should not naturally and logically assume he or she is dead?

I would call this approach an individual fallacy from your side.

Think of it this way, they all see him die.

2000 years later Ibn says he did not die, hence the multitude that was present at the resurrection 2000 years ago are all assuming what did not happen; hence they are logically wrong.

So Ibn this is how the brain God has given you helps you differentiate truth from falsehood?

Ibn writes:

Hogan:But lets apply this same demand to the muslims, (pay attention everyone) can Ibn provide any passage in which Muhammad's followers clearly saw the angel Gabrial reveal the words of the Qur'an to Muhammad. Because if none of Muhammad's followers saw this process, why in in the whole wide earth should we believe it.

This is a red herring and an argument ad hominem circumstantial. However, if providing an eye witness account of communication between Gabriel and Muhammad(saw) will shut your illogical mouth, then read the following:

Elijah replies:

I don’t bother to post the entire passage here.

My first objection: how do you know the passage is reliable?
If I have learned anything the last year it is that Muslims pick and choose from the Hadiths as it fits them best.

Here are a few more objections

Was this really Gabrial: 1) he knelt before Muhammad, 2) Muhammad instructed the stranger, not vice versa, hardly a indication of revelation, 3) the individual never proved by angelic appearance that he was Gabrial or even angelic.

When I asked you for a passage in which the followers of Muhammad witnessed the revelation of the Qur’an, I asked for an angelic being who actually instructed Muhammad and provided him with the word of God from heaven, but then again in an angelic form and glory to provide evidence for his identity.

Not that I necessarily believe that angles alway appear in glory, yet in this case you will need fare more evidence than a man with dark hair who actually sought instruction from Muhammad.

It would appear here that God sent Gabrial to gain instruction from his own prophet.

Ibn wrote:

Regarding the anonymity of Gospels, Hogan wrote:

This is the conclusion I read in most of the books I look into.
The claim is, the Gospels were anonymous so how can they be trustworthy.There are a number of fallacies here.Firstly muslims continually claim that the Injeel was God's revelead word, so it would be anonymous anyway.Now it is amazing when the muslim find out that critical scholars actually agree, they simply go against their own claim for the nature of the original injeel and argue that the Injeel is untrustworthy since no authors are mentioned in the manuscripts.Secondly, if the muslim is correct in his approach here I would also demand the Muslims to show me the name of Uthman or Zaid at least attached to the most ancient Qur'ans; and obviously such is not the case, hence we cannot trace these Qur'an's back to the original composition.

These are all red herrings.

Elijah replies:

Funny response! You get completely refuted, and all you can say is redhearings.

Do you completely fail to see that your approach completely refutes the Qur’an as well.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:Thirdly, there is simply no evidence that the Gospels were anonymous in the first place. I have read tons of paper on this, and scholars never provide any clear evidence for the basis of this conclusion. All I can think of is again the necessity of atheist thinkers to exclude apostolic authorship as it renders the Gospel account history and so the natural world-view is refuted.

Man, could you be any more wrong? There are conservative scholars who are just as adamant as their non-believing counterparts in admitting that the Gospels were authored anonymously. For example, N.T.Wright.

Elijah wrote:

I don’t care about Ehrman or Bultmann or even Wright here.

The major rule in my master level studies is not to base yourself upon scholarship but upon the ancient data, the priority sources.

All you can give me are secondary sources, which I read continueally anyway yet, which are of no value to me.

I provided you with an excellent explanation to this in my previous post, if that does not sink in and you only can quote Wright, then we are wasting our time here.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:The Gospel authorship was known by e.g. Irenaeus who knew Polycarp the disicple of John and a number of other disciples and eyewitnesses. Mark's Gospel and its authorship and Petrine source was confirmed in 150 AD by Justin Martyr who operated under a strict line of apostolic successors in Rome, a succession that reached back to Peter the apostle and Paul among others. Papias who writes in 80-100 AD records in the present tense information that was conveyed to him while the disciples of Jesus were still alive, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel, and Mark dicated his Gospel from the apostle Peter.

And this is what the scholars have been saying. Other than what prejudiced Church fathers who came onto the scene much later asserted, we have no indication of apostolic origins of these documents.

Elijah wrote:

So you trust scholars appearing on the scene 2000 years later, but you doubt those who lived in the first and second century who actually were aquainted with the apostles and the eyewitness.

Those that imply that modern scholarship can actually wreck the Qur’an into pieces with any conjecture of the day, while all ancient data surrounding the early islam simply needs to be rejected?

That is certainly a fair analogy!
And you even dare to say that we have no indication of apostolic origins in the ancient documents.

I suppose that you have not read Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp or Irenaeus, or even Paul’s epistles.
Ibn go and do your homework, something tells me that you know absolutely nothing about this field of study.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:Hence Ibn You have been refuted! Again!!!

I've been refuted? Where?!?
We did however present a whole lot of arguments, which you so far have avoided to educate us about.

Elijah replies:

Lol...well just read through out the post, every reader can conclude that you have been refuted and silenced continually and on virtually every point, and even exposed as probably the most inconsistent muslim on the blog.

Fernando said...

Ibn... can you explain us how you read the textt you presented from Shahi Muslim, as a momentt where Muhammad recieved a revelation? Thankes...

Anonymous said...

Ibn, we don't know who memorized ayah soandso. You trust them and they have no names attached to them. The gospels have names attached to them. You reject them. Consistency?

Lothair Of Lorraine said...

I just wanted to comment on this endless question of Pilot and the death of Jesus. For the Muslims to debate the death is just folly. Pilot wondered if Jesus were dead [Mk 15:44] and sent a Centurion to find out. Once the Centurion reported that Jesus was 'apothnēskō' [G599]. The word means dead, not merely comotose or sleeping. It means dead, slain, perished. You know, dead. The word appears over 100 times in the GNT.

The body was given to Joseph and it was 'taken off the Cross' [Mk 15:46]. Jesus was then laid in a tomb, not on a doctor's couch. Why? Because he was dead.

Muslims make these verses sound like Pilot was concerned that Jesus had survived the Cross. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Joseph of Arimathaea had asked for the body, so Pilot ordered a soldier to administer to [1] confirming the death, [2] handing the body over for burial.

asiyahvanessa said...

Firstly if it appeared to the Jews that they had killed Yeshua why would anyone write down that they didn't? If the Qu'ran says they boasted about killing Yeshua, then obviously they thought they did, so they wouldn't have written anything other than what they believed to be true?

Someone spoke of the early Christians as heretics? Why were they heretics? Yeshua was Jewish so surely everyone should just follow Jewish traditions and believe that Yeshua was really a prophet? Otherwise if you're telling me God was Jewish what chance do Christians have?

Why would God rising again be such a big thing since he apparently can't die? Are you telling me your god committed suicide? And was dead for 3 days? would the world not be in utter destruction if that were the truth?

Lothair Of Lorraine said...

Vanessa:

I'll just make one point, about the Jews boasting that they had killed Jesus. I need to remind you that the Quran quotes the Jews who killed him as having called him 'the Messiah'. It is inconceivable that the Jews who recognized he was Messiah would also have boasted that they had killed him.

ExposedIslam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ExposedIslam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.