David/NabeelYou two better step up your game. Mary Jo is awsome :)
Osama Einstein-Pinochio Abdalah ounce saide in this blogg, to justifie the facte he was not invited to debate in the UK, thate in the UK where plentie muslimes (men and women) to performe greatelie in debates... and in the USA? There is nott a single muslim debater? And if there's, whie his nott more encoraged bie her muslim pears to presente herself more often in this eventes? hummm?
What does it mean when every debate here at your site slows down to a halt about half way through and then I get frustrated and cannot watch the whole thing?Mary Jo was very good in the opening and then it shut down with that "spinning thingy" (internet connection issue) about 6 minutes into Gulam's opening.Is he Ahmadiyah? Wasn't Ahmad Deedat Ahmadiyah?What does the Arabic really say in Surah 4:157?Dr. White, in his debate with Imam Shamsi Ali even pointed out that it does not really say "he was made to appear to them" but rather, "it was made to appear to them".Doesn't 3:55 and 19:33 really say that Jesus died? "we are causing you to die" (3:55) and "peace on the day I die" (19:33)Doesn't 3:54 say that "Allah is the very best of deceivers" (Kheir ol makareen") "Makr" has come into Farsi, which I know, and always has a very negative meaning of "deception", "trickery", "Guile", ruse, trick, deceit, slyness, strategem, wile, and Makar is deceitful, sly, crafty, cunning, foxy, deceptive, wily, tricky, shrewd. These synomyms are from my Farsi dictionary and from 16 years of experience, it is always negative; never positive in the sense of "planning" and "plotting", etc.Sincerely in Christ,Ken Temple
Im sorrie: I saide: «There is nott a single muslim debater? And if there's, whie his nott more encoraged bie her muslim pears to presente herself more often in this eventes? hummm?»... I meant: «There is nott a single muslim woman debater? And if there's, whie is nott more encoraged bie her muslim pears to presente herself more often in this eventes? hummm?»... sorrieeee...Mary Jo: a good performance; we shoulde all be berie prounde for your worke to the glory of God. God bless!
Why any Muslim wants a debate on the crucifixion is beyond me. The results are always the same. Bothe the swoon theory and substitution theory are impossible to defend.
To be fair to Ehtehsaam, he did improve in his performance in this debate. I'm sorry the substance of his argument did not improve. I'm wondering does he even know what conistency meens? I also found some of his statements to be deleberitly offensive."The disciples were not very intelegent... the disciples were DIMWITTED..."Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasnt it Ehteshaam who challaged Mary Jo to a deabte?
Initially, in a thread on this site, David and Nabeel suggested that Ehteshaam debate me on pagan myth theory. I contacted Ehteshaam through email to set up a debate on pagan myth. Ehteshaam was not interested in this debate so he offered to debate on the subject of "Was Jesus Crucified?" or "Who Was Jesus?" I agreed to debate on the topic of "Was Jesus Crucified?" So there you have it.
Let me also say this: Ehteshaam is a cool guy. I very much enjoyed meeting him.
There's an interesting written debate on the resurrection currently taking place here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=269819
Great work Mary Jo!I was impressed.Though some details on both sides were above my head I enjoyed it.Ehteshaam did well also but I have to disagree with him on some points.He said he used Richard Carrier even if he was an atheist because his scholarship was good."Scholarship is good"means the methodology is good.I agree his methodology is good.One can disagree with him on specifics,the exact meaning of this or that Greek word,etc,but his method is good.And using the same method he rejects the info in the Koran.For example he believes Luke and Matthew can't be reconciled regarding when Jesus was born.One reason is because Herod the Great would never have allowed the Romans to conduct a census in Palestine and if so Josephus would have mentioned it.I said before that several times the Bible was supposed to be wrong but wasn't.For example Gallio was a brother of the famous Roman philosoher Seneca.In Acts 18:12-17 he appears and meets Paul.He is called the proconsul of Achaia.All,and I repeat,all the documentary evidence apparently proved 100% that Gallio had no time to be proconsul of Achaia.It was impossible.Then they discovered the Gallio Inscription that proved it.He met Paul around 52 AD.Regarding Tacitus we know he was a very careful historian.Carrier believes Tacitus just repeated things he heard about Jesus without verifying.It's possible.But it would go against his methodology.It is more probable he verified,it's the argument of precedent.If a writer does something 20X then the mathematical probability he would do it the 21st time is high.I think here Carrier is not being faithful to what is more logical,more probable.Regarding Tacitus' passage about the Christians,it's referring to the great fire in Rome in 64 AD.If the Christian passage was about a tiny minor event then the mathematical probability (I think for this you use Bayes' Theorem)Tacitus would merely repeat hearsay without even trying to check would be considerable.But the 64 AD fire burned half,I repeat,no less than 50% of Rome.It lasted several days.It was a horrible disaster,500,000 people were left homeless,half the population.Nero blamed it on the Christians because the people were blaming it on Nero.That such a careful historian,hearing a story that a man had been killed by Pontius Pilate,etc would not even try to find out if such a man as Pontius Pilate had lived,if the religion of the Christians had really or not originated there,etc,is highly improbable. About the some 60 historians of the 1st century who never mention Jesus' death,from what I know,the great majority of the writings of Antiquity have completey disappeared.Tacitus works are incomplete.Most important,in 70 AD all the documents in the city of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans.So the info the Jewish authorities had written about Jesus in 33 AD and after,and about the followers of Jesus burned into dust.Eheshaam's argument of the 60 historians would be greater if all or almost of the writings of the 1st century AD had been preserved.
Ehteshaam Gulam, ounce again, returned to the myth off the, as brother minoria saide, «60 historians of the 1st century who never mention Jesus' death»...with the same logic, since in the VII century (when the communications were eben better then inn the I century) there wee eben more historians thate spoke aboute Arabia and neber spoke aboutte Muhammad, we can all conclude thate Muhammad neber existed... hummm: thankes Doctor Gulam for provindingue us all this major argumente to probe thate islam is a myth...
minoria:"I agree his methodology is good.One can disagree with him on specifics,the exact meaning of this or that Greek word,etc,but his method is good.And using the same method he rejects the info in the Koran."Why do you think that Carrier's methodology is good? Good compared to what (typical Muslim polemics, the methods of historians in general, etc.)?"Eheshaam's argument of the 60 historians would be greater if all or almost of the writings of the 1st century AD had been preserved."Even if that were the case, the argument would not be a good one. In fact, there are multiple flaws in it. To begin with, there's just no reason why Jesus should have been that significant a figure for 1st century Greco-Roman historians.The two significant historians that mention Jesus both mention his death by crucifixion. Since Eheshaam isn't arguing agains the existence of Jesus but against his death by crucifixion, what matters is that the ones who mention Jesus' existence with some detail do not dispute or show lack of awareness for his death by crucifixion. Furthermore, since he said that he finds the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified ridiculous, we have a situation where he's arguing for an event that was the empirical equivalent of a death by crucifixion. Therefore, any supposed lack of mention is equally puzzling on his own view as it is on the view that Jesus actually died on the cross.
After listening to most of the debate, I get the sense that Ehteshaam is too lazy to do his own research. Listening to him regurgitate the critics' arguments is intellectually insulting, and slovenly on Mr Gulam's part, so he has decades to go before he can consider himself a Muslim "apologist", even by Islam's standards (which, by the examples, are nearly non existent). I listened to nearly all of Ehteshaam's opening, decided it made me feel as if I were being forced to sit through a D-movie I'd seen a dozen times. From that point on, I fast forwarded through his clumsy struggle at practicing apologetics. My suggestion is: The next time Gulam thinks he wants to debate, tell him to reveal the sources of his defense material, then make an effort to skip the middle-man, Gulam, and go directly to the atheist from whom Gulam will be recycling an argument. Carrier has to be a better public speaker, AND researcher. He's still hell-bound, but not so mind numbing. Too bad he chose Abdallah the quack as his role model. He should have selected someone who wasn't a research derelict. Is it my imagination, or do Muslims look more and more ignorant & negligent with each new exposure of Muhammad's hocus-pocus? May the God of Israel touch their minds and their hearts, turning them to Christ, the only Way, Truth, and Life. There will be no debating at the Judgment, and even if there were, Muslims would never be able to pull it off.
Hello Haecceitas,I agree Carrier's ideas in some parts are forced,like the 2 body theory.In an interview he said it was a theory,that could be wrong.I don't think many even in the Jesus Seminar are convinced.What convinces me it is not the best is that he wants us to think that "give life to your mortal bodies" in Rom 8:11 means something like we are still alive,not dead,but get life,or spiritual strength from God.That is my impression.But Rom 8:10 also says "he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to..."The key words are "dead","life","Christ" and "mortal bodies" and "will also".Paul is making an analogy,a comparison between Jesus and his followers.In 1 Cor 15 we have that Jesus "died",was "buried" and rose on the 3rd day.Carrier certainly agrees "died" and "buried" are "physically died and physically buried",not "spiritually died and spirit. buried" here.But he says "raised" here is "spiritually raised,spiritual resurrection."But connecting 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8:10 will tell us if by "raised" Paul meant spiritual or physical. He says "you will also" connecting Jesus' experience (his expereince of really dying and really getting buried)with his that of his followers.So what happened to Jesus?He actually died and actually was buried.And the same "will also" happens to his followers:they will also physically die and be physically buried.But they "will also" be "raised" like Jesus.In what did the "raising" of Jesus consist of?The connection is in Rom 8:10,the "raising" of Jesus was "giving life to his physical(mortal) body".I hope I am not being fuzzy.The giving of life is to a dead body that like in 1 Cor 15 died and was buried,it's dead.That by logic means a physical resurrection.Can a dead body have "life" and yet remain dead?I don't see how.
excellent work my Mary Jo sharp.i congratulate her for that.someone seriously really needs to teach gulam about the differences between a physical resurrection and a spiritual resurrection.also considering the book of revelations as an inspired book anyone can easily refute the claim that Jesus did not die on the cross or that he was not resurrected.Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; finally gulam should thank Mary for not throwing a water bottle on his face,,,LOLpeace in christvijay
Dear Gulam,Gulam you should go and find yourself a other Hobby.This 'debate' again showed that you are unable to present persuasive and consistent argumentation.But don't worry ,your hero (abdullah) has that very same problem :) you again disqualified yourself from the acedemic field.
Rafa-el_1,Cut the guy some slack; after all, consider the position he has to defend. :)I know: Gulam is a bad (but possibly improving) lawyer, but it would help make him look better if he had a good case to defend. Let's see how he does as a debator after he repents and turns to Christ.
In the debate Ehteshaam said James' death in Josephus wasn't because of his belief in the resurrection,spiritual resurrection according to him.I understand his argument.This was used by Dan Barker,atheist,ex-Christian,with Michael Licona.But it can be argued otherwise.Who was James?He was the half-brother of Jesus.He was one of the 3 top Christian leaders:Peter,Paul,James.He was the head of the Jerusalem church,all of who were Jews.Paul in 1 Cor 15 tells us Jesus appeared to James.In Galatians Paul tells us he knew James personlly twice,that he approved of his ideas.The Jesus Seminar agrees the 1 Cor 15 creed was held by James:Jesus died,was buried,resurrected on 3rd day.This is crucial.Josephus makes it clear he disapproves of the death of James,that it was based on false charges.So why was James killed?He was killed on false charges because he was the head of the Jerusalem church.Suppose one of the world's most famous atheists,militant atheists,like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris is executed by the US government on charges of terrorism,false charges.The real reason would be not because of terrorism but because of their atheism. So James,who scholars agree was the head of the Jerusalem church,and believed in 1 Cor 15,was killed on false charges because he believed in 1 Co 15.Was he executed because he preached the OT was true?No.Because he said Yahweh was the true God?No.Because he said the idea of the Messiah was true?No.Because he was a Jew?No.But because he preached certain ideas about Jesus:died,buried and resurrected(spiritual if you prefer) and also because he was the leader of the group that believed it.The charges were trumped up.
minoria - Thanks for covering that argument. MJ
Your welcome,Confident Christianity,and I like the title you chose.But more thanks to you for your website and reaching out trying to convince others.Your are fine debater.
Wow!Just checked youtube and more than 9,300 views in 5 days of the ArabFest incident.I'm glad lots are learning of answeringmuslims.com and hope they read the material.A Christian called Glorthac made 4 videos where he respectfully says where he disagrees(he says there are errors) with Ehteshaam in the debate.He goes point by point.It's at youtube,at:/watch?v=Cp8yrX4iNWEI'm impressed with his knowledge.One point he doesn't cover is where Eht. says Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth.True,not directly.But he says Jesus was God(Rom 9:5,Philip.2:6-11 and in another passage).Also Jesus was "born of a woman,under the Law(Mosaic Law)),Galat 4:4."But in Exodus Moses is called God and in Psalms God says to men:"you are gods".True,but Phil.2:6-11 makes it crystal clear it means Jesus was YAHWEH himself.It's not even Paul's words.He simply repeats a hymn or creed written y others.It's called the Carmen Christi (Song of the Messiah in Latin).Maybe written only 10 years after Jesus' death.So Paul says Jesus was Yahweh and born of a woman.Hmmm,that implies a virgin birth.Hardly likely Paul would actually believe Yahweh,literally Yahweh,was born of a woman the normal way.That Jesus had a biological father.So I respectfully disagree with Ehteshaam.
Arab Fest incident is over 42,000 hits!Roger SharpConfident Christianity
Is there any way that I can get a paper copy of this debate? Mary Jo was awesome in proving Jesus is the Messiah the son of God and died and rose again for our sins!! Thank you,Holley
I enjoyed the debate. Ehteshaam repeatedly assumed away eyewitness accounts and the validity or relevancy of Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. I would recomend an excellent book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by R. Bauckham. He addresses the relevancy and accuracy of both the eyewitness accounts and historical accounts.Thanks for the good effort.
Hi Brothers God Bless you all I have some statments that comes from quran, let see the Quran In Sura Mariam: (Issa saying peace on me the day I born , and the day died and the day send a live) that mean that God will send him to the world to live there and die and get alive again (resurrected), this Aya ( sura) came while muhammed was in meca after he took refuge in Ethiopia in Christian land, which mean Jesus Died and resurrected, but he changed his mind after meeting with Christian of Nigran in Saudi Arabia after they debate with him and refused his prophesy, and got his Verses against the trinity and crucifixion few years after migration to Madena. Another Verses is Sura Al Omran: ( God said to Issa I will let you Die ( Mutauafeka in quran) and raise by me then purify you from the infedils) there is no other meaning to Mutauafeka in arabic but dead or killed ( In al Emam Alrazi, Abn Issaq, and in Emam Albethawi) in other way mean quran said jesus died then risen . those two sura canceled or aggregated by Sura Al Nesaa. Thanks and God bless you all with grace of our Lord Jesus Chris, and again do not listen to me, or your debaters but go check your books and the Gospels and investigate your self.
Good debating Mary Jo! You made easy work of this subject. A few other points to use in reference to Jesus's physical death are; 1) Roman soldiers were professional killing machines. They would not have let one of the condemned off that cross until and unless they were actually dead. 2) Hence, the lance that was thrust into Jesus's side piercing His heart causing blood and water to pour from the wound. Here you could give the anatomical explanation of a pericardial rupture. 3) Jesus's own mother not only witnessed His death, ( making the substitution theory pretty lame) but also observed and most likely assisted in preparing His body for burial, wouldn't any parent.4) Jesus appeared twice to the disciples inside a room, that the gospels make it a point to mention, was securely locked because they were afraid of being arrested. So He has a physical body that could ingest food but could also materialize inside a locked room.Not that you needed additional material, you did an exceptional job. I love how respectful most of the debates on this site are.Peace,Christopher
Post a Comment