Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: The Message of Jesus and Muhammad

Fun debate last night with Sami Zaatari at Imperial College London.

26 comments:

John Bob said...

Great debate, brother David did us proud.. I see that had NO RESPONSE TO Davids Bible, quranic corruption..

Zack_Tiang said...

Look forward to listening to the debate as I work.

Assyria_Lost said...

David Wood was great as usual even in idle mode, given the time restriction he delivered. As for Sami Zaatari, he started off well , unfortunately his inconsistencies and occasional frustration got the best of him, especially towards the end. This was the first debate I ever attended and it was great seeing David Wood in the flesh.

Selecta Mark said...

Look forward to seeing you in Birmingham David. Hopefully one day you also bring Sam Shamoun with you!

Foolster41 said...

"The orignal books (the Islamic gospels), they don't exist!"
Ha! Well, we can agree with that! They don't exist, Apollogists made them up!

akairey said...

David did great! Sami was very inconsistent and didn't answer "how the Quran knows what was corrupt versus what wasn't."

hugh watt said...

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention.

Children are being taught to show reverence for Mohammed in British schools.

"My brilliant niece Freya was talking to my brother the other day about the religious education curriculum at her predominately white, middle-class state school in a pretty English cathedral city. She happened to mention ‘Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him.’ ‘Eh?’ said my brother. ‘It’s what we’re taught at school. After we mention “Mohammed” we have to say “Peace be upon him”.’

Now I know what you’re thinking: that Freya must surely have got the wrong end of the stick. ‘If this were a madrassa in Bradford, well maybe,’ you’ll be thinking. ‘But at a white, middle-class state school in a pretty English cathedral city? No way. Things aren’t that bad. At least not yet, anyway…’

But Freya is not stupid. That’s why, at the beginning, I referred to her as my ‘brilliant’ niece as opposed to my ‘incredibly thick’ one. Apparently, she assures me, they’ve been taught to use the ‘peace be upon him’ formula since Year 7 and though they’re allowed to shorten it to PBUH, they’re definitely not supposed to call him just Mohammed. ‘There’s sometimes the odd snigger when the phrase comes up but we’ve been conditioned pretty much to accept it as normal,’ says Freya. ‘It’s a bit weird, given that there’s only two Muslim kids in my year of 100.’

..Why? You can imagine the fuss if at every mention of the name Jesus Christ all children of whatever creed were forced to raise their arms in the air and add ‘Our Lord and Saviour, He is risen, Alleluia’. We ought to be equally appalled, I would suggest, at what children at Freya’s school are being forced to do with regards to the prophet of a rival religion."

Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong

david L said...

1st and foremost, I would like to thank you and the entire ABN for not only educating everybody on what The Bible really teaches, but also doing the same with Islam/Qur'an. It breaks my heart when I see anybody purposely distort the teachings of The Bible. Worse than that, it angers me whenever I go on a so called Christian based website and someone states that Christianity & Islam are both of God. How is that so when a Christian's goal is to live with God and his glory forever, while A Muslim's goal is to have sex w/72 virgins , wine, silk garments, and so fourth. The other stark contrast is that Christians are called to give their lives while preaching the gospel so that nonbelievers will be saved. Contrary to that, Muslims are call to spread their message peacefully at first, but if that fails, then violence is called. So in a nutshell, One is to give their life so that others may have eternal life with God, while the other may have to take lives in order to reach carnal pleasure that reside in heaven. Hmm! Which side seems selfish? Anyway, May THE LORD bless The ABN and hopefully, I will have the blessing of calling you guys on the show.

Royal Son said...

Great job Dr. Wood. I think you excellently exposed Sami's inconsistent position. I think the audience Q&A was actually quite good as well. I especially liked the question one person asked about Jesus' message being with his people until the end of the age. Sami did not really provide a proper response.

One thing that I think he really messed up on was regarding textual criticism. He kept appealing to scholars with regards to the manuscript originals.

In point of fact, none of the scholars assert that what we have today is different in reading from the original text. Those who oppose christianity will state that we don't have the physical original manuscripts and that we DON'T KNOW if our current readings match the originals or not. That is very different to what Sami was saying. More importantly to the issue, there is no evidence throughout the manuscript tradition pointing to originals which support the Christology of Islam, namely that he was a mere man who never died or was raised.

aaron said...

hi all james white made a video in reply to muslimbychoice

gabriella oak said...

One of these days Sami is going to present his much-vaunted 'Original Gospel' to the audience. His entire argument rests on its existance, so he really is obligated to produce it if he wants to be taken seriously.
Come on Sami, don't be coy !!

As an aside, how depressing to see the apparent gender segregation of those attending the debate. In a university of all places :(

andy bell said...

No offense, but this debate was a little underwhelming.

Look, you guys no that I'm a deist. From my perspective both christianity and islam are not true.

however, the topic of the debate was "The message of mohammad/Jesus"
This was a debate more about which revelation was true and whose scriptures are textually correct.

The MESSAGE is fairly simple from a christian perspective. Jesus--the golden rule--love your enemy.

Mohammad's message is to be a slave for allah, conquer others, and follow as many rules as possible.

I didn't hear any of that in this debate.

Folks, it just boils down to that.

Hazakim1 said...

Bro David......speechless. Just watched the whole debate as well as your debate with Sami from last year.....You killed it by the grace of God! Well done brother! Jesus 2. Muhammad 0.

minoria said...

Great job David,

You gave me ideas and information for more articles in French.I now have great extra material.

Sami did a good job in some parts of the debate.But Islam is false so even the cleverest arguments can't help it.

minoria said...

Hello David,
I forgot to add this:

Sami said Muslims have memorized the Koran for centuries.

Yeah,but Aisha said a goat ate some chapters of the Koran.My question is:

Sami,if Muslims have perfectly memorized all the Koran then why were they not able to memorize the PARTS EATEN BY AISHA'S GOAT?

His argument falls apart at this point.

southwood said...

The q'uran states that Christians believe in the Trinity, which consists of the Father, Son and Mary ! In fact, Muslims are ignorant of Christianity now as they always were. Sami consistently misinterprets the Bible. It's because his mind is prejudiced to do so. Other interpretations seem beyond his mindset. He is rather sad.

Mistie Holler said...

Sami did really well given the material he had to work with.

The Islamic idea that the gospels are not the original gospels yet they retain some truth is a confusing one.

If the writers of the four gospels we know today were deliberately setting out to deceive the reader, then Allah didn't need to deceive them by crucifying a lookalike of Jesus, because they would have written lies in their gospels anyway, because their purpose was to mislead. Allah didn't need to stage a fake resurrection for it to make it into the gospels, so why did he need to stage a crucifixion? Why did he sully his name and prove himself to be deceitful by colluding with the deceptive gospel writers?

Why did the deceptive gospel writers include ANY of Jesus' truthful teachings at all, since they wanted to profoundly obscure the truth, and altered the contents beyond recognition from the Islamic message anyway? If they wanted to propagate polytheism (as Muslims claim they did by elevating Jesus) then why did the deceptive gospel writers include the verses in Mark that Sami referenced and claimed is an affirmation of the importance of tawhid('Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One, and you must love Him...')? Isn't that the last of Jesus' teachings you'd include if you were deceptively trying to get people to sinfully associate partners with Allah?

Of course, Muslims might say that the writers weren't being deliberately deceptive, they were just trying to report on the life and times of Jesus, and got it wrong. But then it makes no sense for Allah to have deceived them. After all, they faithfully reported SOME of what Jesus did and taught, and their intention was to be truthful. In which case, Allah self-sabotaged with the whole 'fake Jesus' thing. If he hadn't crucified a lookalike, and the gospel writers were honest people, we'd have the original Islamic gospels today (instead there is no trace of them at all).

Why did Allah do any of it at all? Isn't it much more likely that Muhammad just didn't know what was in the gospels, and from what he had heard he assumed they bore similarities to his own revelations? And his USP was the oneness of God (the purity of his monotheism in the face of the Meccan cacophony of gods and goddesses), and he wanted to be the head honcho rather than having people consult priests and monks and so on, and he didn't understand the significance of the crucifixion but when someone finally explained it to him, he saw how profoundly it undermined his own revelation and position so he knew he had to find a way to un-deify Christ? Isn't it much more likely that a man, Muhammad, was deliberately deceptive than God?

SD17 said...

Sami differentiated between the Gospel and Torah Chirstians have in their possession with the Gospel (injeel) and Torah in the Quran using the word "original", I'd like to ask Sami does the Quran reference the injeel and Torah as "original"injeel,"original"Torah??, if the answer is No, which it is, then Sami is guilty of "bidah" (innovation), because he is adding a word into the Quran that was never originally part of the Quran therefore altering its meaning

Also I never can understand why Sami and other Muslims apologists use Non Christian and Christian sources to refute the inerrancy of the bible (in terms of the book as whole not the content, the content is another contentious issue) when Mohammed essentially refutes either of them and their positions by affirming their authenticity, and as David stated why would Allah allow Torah and injeel to be corrupted and the Quran preserved when their are all the revealed "Words" of Allah??

DazzleDaz said...

GBU brother David, you have have attained great knowledge and show the truth of the Bible. Nearly all the statements in the Qur'an regarding Judaism and Christianity are wrong.

DazzleDaz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minoria said...

Hello,
To answer Sami's assertion that Jesus said a false prophecy because of the "THIS GENERATION" prophecy,the answer is here(with LINKS that have even more DETAILS):

You can translate with GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

http://translate.google.com/

"Le Jesus Historique a-t-il dit une Fausse Prophetie sur la Date de sa Seconde Venue?"

http://www.avraidire.com/2012/07/le-jesus-historique-a-t-il-dit-une-fausse-prophetie-sur-la-date-de-sa-seconde-venue/

A Humble Servant of our LORD Jesus Christ said...

This was a good debate. David did win.

As for the question with regards to sin, if David when into the difference between remission (forgiveness) and redemption (clearing/taking away), it would have been made clear to both Sami and the questioner. In Exo 34:7 the LORD said He forgave but didn't clear because He was planning to clear for all time at Calvary. After Calvary, the sins of the OT were cleared and all sin afterward is cleared for those who trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation.

minoria said...

Guys,
I forgot to add more info about Sami's objections.He talked that Jews for Judaism doesnt accept Jesus in the OT.For me,what convinced me was not ISAIAH 53 but passages that say,that according the HEBREW USAGE:

1.The Messiah=YAHWEH,read:

"L’Ancien Testament dit que le Messie sera Yahvé Lui-Meme"

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/lancien-testament-dit-que-le-messie-sera-yahve-en-personne/

2.The other detail was that the way passages are stated the OT says the NAME of the MESSIAH which is JOSHUA=YESHUA=Jesus

"L’Ancien Testament dit que le Nom du Messie est Jésus"

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/lancien-testament-dit-que-le-nom-du-messie-est-jesus/

aaron said...

guys you should check the comments section a guy who is called prince john is kind of being a troll when asked him who muhummed was suppose to ask still hasn;t given me a name and insisting that the bible is corrupted even though i used papyrus manuscripts.

how do you end conversations like that because he doesn;t seem to be able to get it through his head.

Nothin'ButTheTruth said...

@ Aaron, LOL welcome to the world of seventh century arabia...LOL

david L said...

Muslims are so quick to say the bible is corrupt, but the never evaluate muhammad's statement saying the God's word is incorruptible. Either the bible is corrupt and the quran is wrong, making allah weak or...a deceiver, or muhammad/quran are false. They never question those possibilities. Imagine if the bible said the world was flat. Muslims would hop all over that despite what muhammad said about the earth being flat. It's sad when a religion promotes truth, but practice lies and forces it's followers to not ask ?s about what they believe. There are so many things that eliminate the cross dressing false prophet. ?: Yet, muslims are so blind to that truth. How can some1 be labeled as the peace to all mankind when he tells his followers to humiliate and murder non muslims or any1 who criticizes him. That's like hitler creating the "I Have A Dream" speech and organizing the million man march. What would have happened if martin luther king had taken muhammad's ideology? Most likely I would not have the rights that I have 2day and he would not have a national holiday in his name. malcolm x doesn't have a national holiday because of what he promoted. Anybody can lash out in anger...babies do that. MLK's message was of peace for everybody just like Jesus. So in a nut shell, muhammad<MLK<Jesus We know that Jesus didn't come with the sword and is unique so we should have ABN have a 1 day show called "Martin Luther King/Gandhi or muhammad" lol For a so called prophet, he wasn't powerful enough 2 get his message across w/o force like the other 2 i had mention...sad