Friday, October 23, 2009

Sam Shamoun vs. Yahya Snow on the Implications of John 1:19-21

This exchange has been painful to listen to. I don't see how Yahya can't get a basic point. Muslims appeal to Jewish expectation in John 1 and claim that, since certain Jews were apparently expecting three different people (the Messiah, Elijah, and the Prophet), "the Prophet" must be someone other than Jesus, and, for some reason, must therefore be Muhammad.

Apart from the obvious difficulties associated with claiming that Muhammad is "the Prophet like Moses" of Deuteronomy 18:18 (e.g. the fact that Muhammad was not a Jew, could not perform miracles, did not speak with God face to face, and was clearly condemned as a false prophet just two verses later in Deuteronomy 18:20), there is the absurdity of appealing to the expectations of certain Jews to prove a point, especially when the expectation in question has no grounding in any scripture and when the view was so limited in extent that we have no record of it outside of a small passage in the Gospel of John.

Sam addressed the major problem for Muslims, namely, that if they're appealing to the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be distinct from the Messiah, they can't ignore the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be an Israelite (since they approached John, who was an Israelite). In other words, if Muslims believe that Jewish expectations about the Prophet were correct, the Jews should have gone to an Arab. But they didn't.

So Muslims must conclude that these Jews were wrong in their expectations. But how can Muslims say that the Jews were wrong in their expectations and then appeal to Jewish expectation as evidence for their Prophet? Welcome to the most inconsistent religion in the world, my friends.

Amazingly, rather than reject the absurd Muslim argument as any intellectually honest examiner would, Yahya Snow has attempted to refute Sam's arguments. But Yahya just can't seem to grasp the most basic points. For instance, he declares that, according to Sam's reasoning, the Jews must have expected the Messiah to have a natural birth, because they asked John if he was the Messiah. But this misses the point entirely. Sam isn't appealing to Jewish expectation. Sam is claiming that it's a mistake to base one's case on Jewish expectation, and he points out the fact that the Jews were expecting a Jewish prophet in order to show Muslims that their claim is self-refuting. Yet Yahya just doesn't seem to get this, and he's posting videos to defend his total misunderstanding both of John's Gospel and of Sam's arguments.

Here's a review of the exchange so far, beginning with the relevant passage from John.

John 1:19-23--This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not " "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

(Shockingly, Yahya claims that there's no indication in the text that John believed he was preparing the way for God. Did anyone catch verse 23?

Sam's First Argument:

Yahya's First Response:

Sam's Reply to Yahya:

Yahya's Second Response:

Yahya also wrote an article on this topic, which can be read here. Our very own Semper Paratus responded to Yahya's article here.

I have something more from Sam on this issue as well. When asked about Yahya's position, Sam sent the following email to a Christian:

Hey Bro,

Here is my reply. Let me know if it now makes sense.

As I said in the show we don’t know what the Baptist knew as far as the relationship between the Christ and the Prophet was concerned, and since we cannot enter his mind we have no business second-guessing him. It must be stated that God didn’t reveal everything to the prophets. He revealed only that which they needed to know, no more and no less.

However since Yahya is using the Baptist’s silence to prove his assertion he needs to continue reading a little further to see what the Baptist said concerning his role and function:

“John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, “Make straight the way for the Lord.”’” John 1:23

Here is the OT text that the Baptist was quoting:

“Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.’… You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’ See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” Isaiah 40:3-5, 9-11

According to Isaiah the voice, or herald, was to prepare for the coming of God, the appearance of the glory of Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh was going to appear visibly for all to see after the voice prepared the people for his coming.

Since the Baptist explicitly says that he is that voice this means that Jesus is Yahweh God since John himself says that he came to prepare his way:

“Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?' I baptize with water,' John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’ … The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me BECAUSE HE WAS BEFORE ME.” I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’ Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’" John 1:25-27, 29-34

It now makes sense why the Baptist could say that Jesus existed before him since Jesus is the God of the OT who was coming to reveal himself to his people and therefore existed long before the Baptist was born.

Moreover, John the Apostle mentions the testimony of the Baptist right after stating that Jesus is God and that he (as well as others) saw or beheld his glory:

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him; nothing has been made without him that has been made. In him was life that life was the light of men… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.”’ John 1:1-4, 14-15

Notice the connection between the Apostle’s words here with Isaiah 40:3-5 and the glory of Yahweh which would be seen by all.

Thus, according to both Johns Jesus is the human appearance, the visible manifestation, of the OT God of Israel.

In light of this are you telling me that Muhammad is a prophet whom the Baptist would accept in light of what John’s Gospel tells us the Baptist believed about Christ?

But we’re not finished yet. Yahya tried to argue that the statements of these Jews who questioned the Baptist actually disprove my beliefs. He bases this on the fact that these Jews must have believed that the Christ would be born to human parents since they asked the Baptist whether he was the Christ. In other words, his logic goes like this:

A) The Jews wondered whether the Baptist was the Christ.

B) The Baptist was born to human parents.

C) Therefore, these Jews believed that Jesus would have a natural birth.

In his haste to refute me Yahya only manages to further embarrass both himself and his fellow Muslim apologists.

In the first place, I never based my position on what these Jews believed concerning Christ and the Prophet. Rather, MUSLIMS are the ones trying to use these Jews as evidence that the Prophet is someone distinct from the Christ. I was simply showing them what happens to their argument if they assume that the understanding of these particular Jews concerning these matters were correct.

And since Yahya has now mentioned another problem raised by the beliefs of these particular Jews he is going to have to be consistent and accept that these Jews were not only right that the Prophet is not the Christ but that the Christ would not be born supernaturally from a virgin. This means that not only is the New Testament wrong concerning the Messiah’s virginal conception and birth but Muhammad was also wrong for believing in Jesus’ miraculous birth to a virgin!

It gets even worse. According to Luke’s Gospel John’s father was a priest who officiated at the Temple. Being in such an important position he would not have been able to hide the fact that his wife was barren since it was plain to all that they had no children. Moreover, both the Holy Bible and the Quran state that John was born to his parents at a time when his father had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman (Luke 1:5-25, 36, 39-45, 56-79; Quran 3:37-41; 19:1-15).

Thus, in light of Yahya’s fallacious logic this means that the Jews must have expected that both the Christ and the Prophet would be born supernaturally to an elderly barren woman and a father who had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman. Yet since Jesus was born to a young virgin maiden and had no human father he could not be the Christ! Moreover, Muhammad cannot be that Prophet since his mother wasn’t barren and his father wasn’t old!

This leads to the other major problem raised by Yahya’s desperate polemics. Notice that he argued that the Baptist must have believed that the Christ and the Prophet were two distinct persons solely on the basis of his silence, e.g., the Baptist never objected to this distinction nor did he ever assert that Christ and the Prophet are the same entity. Yet by the same token the Baptist never objected to being the Christ on the grounds that he was born to human parents whereas the Christ had to be born supernaturally to a virgin. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that the Baptist knew or believed that the Christ would be supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit to a virgin who never had sex with a man.

Therefore, according to Yahya’s foolish reasoning this means that the Baptist also didn’t believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, but would be born to human parents instead. It further shows that the Baptist believed that the Christ and the Prophet would be born like him, e.g. born to an older barren woman whose elderly husband could no longer impregnate her!

Hence, according to the above factors Muhammad could not be that Prophet, but a false prophet whom the Baptist would have condemned, since Muhammad wasn’t born to an elderly barren woman or a father who couldn’t conceive children. Muhammad also personally believed in Jesus’ virgin birth, which neither the Baptist nor his Jewish interrogators believed!

In light of this do you see just how silly and desperate Yahya’s counter-points truly are?

Let me repeat. I did not nor do I base my position on what these Jewish interlocutors believed concerning the Christ and the Prophet. MUSLIMS LIKE YAHYA DO SO. Therefore, if these Jews were right then that means that the Prophet must be an Israelite and that both he and the Christ must be born through the process of sexual intercourse to an older man passed the age of being able to impregnate women and an elderly mother who was barren. If this is the case then Yahya has provided further evidence that Muhammad is a false prophet condemned by the Holy Bible, the Baptist, and these particular Jews since he wasn’t an Israelite whose parents were way pass the age of having children and erroneously believed that the Messiah was born supernaturally to a young blessed virgin maiden!

In other words, Yahya is now stuck with his fallacious reasoning and must abandon Muhammad as a fraud and deceiver!


Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Excellent post

There seems to be a pattern of using the arguments of the bad guys among the Islamic apologists who frequent here.

First it was claimed that the Christ could not be harmed based on Satan’s misuse of Psalm 91 now it is argued that the prophet was a different person from the Christ based on the supposed understanding of the folks that Jesus called the children of the devil.

It is very revealing to see whose testimony folks accept in spirtual matters.


Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Furthermore, why is Yahya Snow appealing to John's Gospel anyway, which according to Muslims is the ultimate case of corruption and fabrication? These Muslims are getting pretty desparate. Yeah I can only repeat the original post: 'welcome to the religion of inconsistency', namely Islam.

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan Elijah Hagbard said: «Furthermore, why is Yahya Snow appealing to John's Gospel anyway, which according to Muslims is the ultimate case of corruption and fabrication?»...

according to muslims this particular part off the Bible was nott corrupted since it appears to sustain the claims made by thate false prophet called muhammad...

I, as a former muslim, always was told thate the Bible was only corrupted in the parts thate it contradicted the qur'an and muhammad's words... on other occasions I was told thate allah prevented thate corruption...

strange, butt true...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

The problem with the Muslim approach here, Fernando, is that in Muslim apologetics, the Gospels reveal a progress in corruption: Mark being the earliest, being the least corrupted and hence the most islamic Gospel.

Then come Matthew and Luke, which are slightly more corrupted and embellished (such as the inclusion of the virgin birth) and finally comes John's Gospel which is the ultimate corruption, which according to Muslims had included a number of trinitarian details, teachings, narratives and ideas, such as the reference to the three: Christ, Elijah and the prophet, including Christological sayings like Jesus: being the way, truth and life, and not to forget the 'paraclete' in John 14.

The question I always ask is, why is the Paraclete not found in Mark's Gospel? And why is the reference to the prophet in John 1 not found in Mark's Gospel.

Muslims cannot simply state that parts of John's Gospel are parts of the Injeel, firstly because many of these passages such as John 1 related to the prophet is narrative, in that case the original Injeel was not a book from heaven but a human narrative.

Furthermore, based upon the progressive-corruption argument held by muslims, muslims can only appeal to Mark's Gospel, and therefore prove themselves consistent if they move even onto Matthew or Luke.

Either they cannot hold to the view of progressive corruption, and the Muslim can then pull verses out of context whereever they desire from the four Gospels (which in itself is embarrasing), and which then implies that he (the muslim) needs to consider the Christological and Trinitarian sayings of Jesus, or they can hold to progressive-corruption, but then the prophet in John 1 is futile for their argument, and then the Qur'an refers to a corrupted passage when claiming that Muhammad was predicted in the Gospel, which implies that the Paraclete in John 14 is not an argument the muslim can appeal to to provide proof for a prediction of Muhammad in the Gospel.

Go ahead muslim, which view do you hold to. In anyway you will yet again shoot yourself in the foot.

sam said...

furnando u said that u were a x muslim. well then u wudnt mind answering me my questions which i asked nabeel too in the previous threads.

when u were a muslim. wut did u think of the scriptures in the quran for instance aisha and muhammad, killing of the non muslims jews and chrsitians for a fact. and the satanic verses and muhammad proclaiming to be a prophet? were u brainwashed like the rest of the redical muslims around the world or were u a westerner muslim who didnt believe in practice them for example suiciding bombing and heavenly virgins? also while u were reading the quran did u find some of the scriptures to be very confusing and heavy?

STOCK TIPS said...

Muslims have no foundation to claim that Bible is corrupt. They do not have their original manuscripts or the original Quran. According to their claim [even though some would not agree to this], they burned 6 versions of Quran even though it was a revelation from God in different tribal languages. I wonder why would God reveal his scripture in 7 different tribal languages & allow 6 of them to be burned. Secondly, why would someone burn the revelation from God, unless there is some intention of hiding facts. Look at what Muslims do, they still practice the rituals practiced by the pagan Arabs 1400 years ago. Their revelation cannot be from a living God. Billion plus population being deceived by Satan, just like the snake deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden

Fernando said...

Dear Simon... I'll try to answer some off your questions...

I was not "born" a muslim... my entire familly was Christian... after I was 3 years old, by a hard experience we all had when my parents were promised a good jobb in the southe of the Filipinas, they (and my older brothers and sisters) were forced to became muslims... I, therefore, to all evidence, only remember growing upp likke a muslim (eben when my parents and my older siblingues keept their Christian faith in secret) since my parents thought thate was the most secure thing to do...

the first thing you habe to know was thate I did nott whent to a "proper scholl"... I was thought, withe other kids likke me, in a "school" in the giant farm where my parents were working and living... tehre I was not thaught anything except whate I was told whate was in the qur'an... yes, we were thaught to memorize pages after pages off thate book printed in arabic butt: we (all off us kids) did nott understodd a single words off we were memorizing and reciting... we only knew whate was supposed to say when we were in the first page, in the second... and so one... to the latter pages we putted personal marks to identify them... whate we knew aboutt was in the qur'an was whate our teachers saide we were "reading"... neber I had in my hands a translation off the qur'an to a language I understood... and aboutt the hadiths? forget it: we did nott eben knew how they were preserved: we only knew aboutt muhammad dna his liffe (lady Aisha included) whate we were told... his liffe was presented as embelished as itt coulde be presented: he was the noble off men, the most pacific, the most loved, the mostte persecuted, the most incompreended, the moste hated by Chrsitains and Jews (thete we were, indeed, thought to hate: Christians, for example, were presented as canibals thate ate other human beings -- a referrence to the Eucharisty --; thate corrpted the heart off people likke snakes; thate belibed in a "monster god" thate had three heads; thate had rewritten the gospels in the 8th century to take off from them all the referrences to muhammad... butt, side our teachers, some were left behind by the power off allah... The Jews were devils in desguise: jinns in human flesh thate wanted to send us muslimes to hell)... in this context all off his (and islam's) violent actions were presented withe rectorical questions likke thes: "iff were you in the place off muhammad, wouldn't you defend your liffe, your family, the mostte precious gift allah could have gabe to you?"... do you see whate we were made to do? to gibe, from our inmature point off view (and who child would not gibe a kick to some other child who would steal his candy?), the assent to muhammads doings, creatting, therefore, a strong vinculous between whate we beliebed was right (from a childish point off view thate, after, was only ractionalized in order to make our suppositions eben more strongs) and wahte muhhamad did... so: critizizing muhammad was critizizing ourselfs... so: I neber heard thate muhammad married a 6 years old girl and made sex withe her when she was 9... never..., butt when someone told me thate (and I was, then, already a Christian) I could nott beliebe in thate...

yes: we were all brainwashed... nott to beee suicide bombers, butt to beliebe in whate now I know it is a complete lie...

may God, teh Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, bless you and your family...

p.s.: don't you expect a single answer to your question from muslims... they had to putt whate they are into question in order to gibbe you a single answer

p.p.s.: do you not forget, also, tahte muslims do nott a "10 commandments": they can kill; they can lie; they can rappe; they can steall...

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

Oh, I forgott to say this... ain't we gibbing to much attention to someone who clearlly lacks whate itt tackes to bee tacken seriously? maybbe not... It was justa thought...

thankes brother Shamoun for your always bright words... may God bless you and your familie...

Yahya Snow said...


If a reaction to something I wrote or said through Youtube is posted then I would appreciate it if somebody emailed me to let me know.

As far as I know no email was sent :)

I would assume that is standard behaviour...please do carry out this act of courtesy in the future.

As for the material, after sifting through the hefty self-congratulatory procalmations and dismissive comments the substance of the material presented by Shamoun, Wood and Paratus seems unconvincing again.

I will elaborate in a response, Insha'Allah (God Willing)

Thanks for reading. Any problems or developments please email me


May Allah guide us all and may Allah help us to help others. Ameen

David Wood said...

Yahya Snow said: "If a reaction to something I wrote or said through Youtube is posted then I would appreciate it if somebody emailed me to let me know. As far as I know no email was sent :) I would assume that is standard behaviour...please do carry out this act of courtesy in the future."

Nice try. We're not your dhimmis, and there is no such standard behavior.

Yahya Snow said...

@Wood seems as though you are being very hostile.

For the email was sent to me..out of courtesy it should have been sent. In the UK we do try to be polite in our discussions. Perhaps you chaps in the USA have different ideas on courtesy

I also note you (Wood) have a history of responding to people's work without alerting such individuals (Richard Carrier will confirm this). For me this is not the best way forward, nor is this unChristian" manner which you addressed me. Think about are representing Christianity but your Muslims opponent (Myself) displays more courtesy and humanity than yourself...hmmm, some of these Christians may even begin to question whether you have a Holy Spirit inside you...think about it.

Also, it seems as though Shamoun, Paratus and yourself have struggled to come up with a satisfying answer...perhaps that was the reason behind your hostile comment

I am not intellectually satisfied by the response by the three of you. I shall outline the reasons later in a response once I have got my other academic work out of the way. I may even prioritise a response to you over a response I was planning for an extremist Christian in the UK who has been in the news of late. We shall see, God Willing

PS...who was the Christian Shamoun emailed...I was under the impression this Christian felt my argumentation was pretty potent.

May Allah guide us all, may Allah help us and our families. Ameen

David Wood said...

Yahya said: " seems as though you are being very hostile."

I'm stating a fact. We're not your dhimmis, so don't come here making demands and inventing rules and expecting us to follow them.

Yahya said: "I also note you (Wood) have a history of responding to people's work without alerting such individuals (Richard Carrier will confirm this)."

Ha! I knew you were getting this from Carrier! Another fan of the atheists when it comes to investigating Christianity, eh? The reason I thought you were getting this from Carrier is that Carrier is the only person egomaniacal enough to make such a demand (apart from you). In fact, after Carrier invented this rule, I contacted four people that Carrier had written responses to, and he hadn't contacted any of them! So he's a hypocrite. I can see why Muslims like him. They like applying rules to Christians that they don't apply to themselves.

Fernando said...

yahya Snow saide: «As far as I know no email was sent :) I would assume that is standard behaviour [...] please do carry out this act of courtesy in the future»...

yepp... same tactic he used withe me: don't criticize me on public... just email me...

t_a_s also wotte in a latter post: only criticize whate I say aboutt islam not whate I say aboutt the Bible... FROM NOW!...

yepp just 17 years old and already threatnning... to sad...

Yahya Snow said...


I had never heard of Carrier until Gulam brought him up

I am not a fan and nor did I "get this from Carrier".

It is common decency to make your opponent aware of your response in a scholarly field. I do not require Carrier to teach me this.

I do intend to respond to some of your material that has come to my assured I will apply what I and others in an academic setting deem to be I will let you know by a nessage on this blog or to your YT page about my response.

It is better than responding to an individual and not alerting him/her to it...that is essentially what you have done

Think about it

By the way...the Dhimmis comment did not portray you in a good light.


May Allah help us to be better people


Anthony Rawlins said...


I agree that we are not to argue, be hostile, or hateful when discussing/debating our opinions or beliefs... BUT, you cannot flatter yourself or try to make yourself of a higher being then the other by announcing it to everyone. This will only project a notion of self glorification, arrogance and lack of humility. Let others decide for themselves if you are courteous or polite.

I find these debates very interesting and enjoy hearing both sides (I am a Christian). I think by keeping these discussions civil, more people will be open to stay and listen. Your faith is mirrored by your fruit.

Yahya Snow said...

Wood said:

Ha! I knew you were getting this from Carrier! Another fan of the atheists when it comes to investigating Christianity, eh? The reason I thought you were getting this from Carrier is that Carrier is the only person egomaniacal enough to make such a demand (apart from you). In fact, after Carrier invented this rule, I contacted four people that Carrier had written responses to, and he hadn't contacted any of them! So he's a hypocrite. I can see why Muslims like him. They like applying rules to Christians that they don't apply to themselves.

David, to me, you sound childish here really do. Whatever you have against Carrier please take it up with him.

I do not know Carrier. He does not know me. As simple as that. I am not his intermediary (or as you would like to put it...I am not his "Dhimmi")



Fifth Monarchy Man said...


you said:

For the email was sent to me..out of courtesy it should have been sent.

I say:

Did you email Shamoun before you publicly responded to him on the internet?

The fact is you made a public claim about his reading of the text. Public claims must be answered in public.

To ask for private correspondence at this point would seem to be the height of hypocrisy and a little whiney.

I’m not trying to be hostile but it is obvious you did not (still don’t ?) understand the point that is being made. If you did you would have never hade made the arguement you did.

Sam is not making any claim at all based on the beliefs of these Jews. He is merely pointing out that the problems that ensue when Muslims do this.

Until you understand this point you will continue to look foolish.

In order to refute him you need to be consistent and explain why these particular Jews would mistakenly believe that John might be "the prophet" yet at the same time be correct that the Messiah and the Prophet like Moses were not the same person.

With no scriptural support this would seem to be impossible

Then you need to explain why anyone should care what these paticular Jews believed in the first place. Especially given the generally poor track record of the establishment in this regard.

Add it all up and it might be a good idea to just forget about this one and look for some other place where the Bible might mention Mohamed.

To hold on to this straw dispite it's manifold problems will tend to cast your whole position in a poor light to an objective bystander. IMHO


David Wood said...

Muslims around the world are killing people, and Yahya can't stop complaining that people didn't send him a courtesy email prior to making a blog post.

Get over yourself, Yahya. I don't know how old you are, but no one's going to want to deal with you when you act like we're supposed to bow to your demands. You're turning into Nadir Ahmed.

I know Muslims like to control other people, but like I said, we're not your dhimmis. In fact, until you grow up a little, do your commenting somewhere else.

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Your personal story is astonishing.Thank you for telling us your story.It coincides in strange details with the stories of other ex-Muslims.There is something that has intrigued me alot.


Some liberal scholars affirm it.Like CROSSAN,of the Jesus Seminar.He said Jesus was put in a COMMON GRAVE for criminals.

The tomb was later invented to hide the SHAME.So there was a lie from the beginning.But I argued the 1 COR 15 creed by logic implies a real cave and tomb when you consider the practices of Palestinian Jews from 30 BC-70 AD.


He believes the empty tomb was INVENTED by Matt and Luke.Mark has it but only as a metaphor.I do not know if he thinks Jesus was put in a common grave.


The gospels say Jesus was actually put in a cave by another Jew,a pious one.Why doubt it?


1.A crucified man was a CRIMINAL.He would be put in a common grave for them.

2.A RELIGIOUS Jew would put a crucified man in the common grave because he thought he was GUILTY.


Most Muslims do not know this and think the PHYSICAL RESURRECTION was INVENTED not years but DECADES after Jesus' death.That was a common belief before.NOW scholars(and it was liberal ones by the way)believe because of the 1 COR 15 creed that such a belief dates from a few months to at the most 5 years after his death.

minoria said...


In 1968 they found:

1.A TOMB in JERUSALEM(very important detail).

2.It has an ossuary with the bones of a man called YEHOHANAN who was in his mid-20's.

3.He was from the TIME of JESUS(very important also).

4.He had been crucified,an ankle had a nail stuck in it.


So Yehohanan had been killed as a CRIMINAL yet was he put in a COMMON GRAVE?No.

He was put in a TOMB.And in JERUSALEM also,and at the TIME of Jesus,3 coincidences with him.


The people who put a CRIMINAL in a TOMB were religious Jews.It is obvious they believed in the resurrection.But why put a criminal in a tomb?Answer:for THEM the man was NOT a criminal,he had been injustly killed.So they interceded for his body so he would have a PROPER JEWISH burial.


All 4 gospels say Jesus was put in a TOMB though he died as a criminal.The Yehohanan evidence shows such an event DID happen.It is archeological proof.To say (with no documentary evidence)that he was 100% put in a common grave and on top of that use the religious duty argument (NO pious Jew would do otherwise than put the body in a common grave)is not convincing.

If,as the NT says,Joseph of Arimathea thought Jesus was INNOCENT,then,as a PIOUS Jew,why would he put Jesus in a common grave for GUILTY people?

It shows the theories of Crossan and Carrier are based more on conjecture than solid proof.Yet many accept it because they do not know better.

Anthony Rogers said...

I just thought I would say, I have posted the second part of my reply to Yahya without sending him a courtesy e-mail or Hallmark card. I know it is very inconsiderate on my part but I do hope he isn't too sore at me.

Fernando said...

Hi Anthony Rawlins... glad to see you arounde here... you made good points aboutt Yahya Snow, butt as you might hebe seen he's always like thate: "I'm so supeeeeerior thate or everyone behaves the way I want or I'll consider him an underdog"... hoppe to see you arounde here more often...

Fernando said...

Dear all...

here's a thread were I have been talkin withe a muslimcommentator called t_a_s thate, eben with is 17 years old, already following the path off Yahya Snow: threattening, menacing; attacking the Bible and the Trinity; and so on... to sad to see thate eben at thate tender age muslims are already intoxicated: either we agree with them or/and do whate they want or they are already willing to chosse the treattnenig path... to sad...

How a dialogue withe a muslim called t_a_s is now at the point off a rain off treats from thate muslim

Royal Son said...

Well don't send him the card until you've emailed him first Semper

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

yahya snow wrote:

For the email was sent to me..out of courtesy it should have been sent. In the UK we do try to be polite in our discussions. Perhaps you chaps in the USA have different ideas on courtesy

Elijah replies:

I live in the UK, I hardly ever see any politeness our discussion here in the UK.

What we see here is an individual who finds himself refuted and effectively debunked, which then resorts to the typical approach to attack the opponents personally in everyway possible, appeal to any sources available even atheistic, and claim that ones approach is academic.

I simply fail to see anything of substance here.

Tania said...

Yahya Snow said: "If a reaction to something I wrote or said through Youtube is posted then I would appreciate it if somebody emailed me to let me know.

As far as I know no email was sent :)

I would assume that is standard behaviour...please do carry out this act of courtesy in the future".

Again, you write:

"I also note you (Wood) have a history of responding to people's work without alerting such individuals (Richard Carrier will confirm this)".

I've never heard of this procedure. So, do you believe this "standard protocol" is implemented by the likes of James White, John Lennox, Shabir Ally, William Lane Craig and others--
once they critiqued the work of their "opponents"? Somehow I find this difficult to swallow, let alone believing that any of these men ever heard of such a procedure. Either way, I think this sense of Email entitlement once someone has critiqued their work is a bit Hollywood.

Fernando said...

Sister Tania asked: «So, do you believe this "standard protocol" is implemented by the likes of James White, John Lennox, Shabir Ally, William Lane Craig and other once they critiqued the work of their "opponents"?»...

I woulde place in the list the name of Ahmed Dedat also... yes... before we can rebutte is demagogic lies, we should send an email to hell where, unfortunately, I fear he's right now...