Saturday, September 14, 2013

Shadid Lewis vs. C.L. Edwards: Can We Trust the Islamic View of Jesus?

Here's a debate between two converts on whether we should trust Muhammad's claims about Jesus.

16 comments:

Jesus is Lord said...

Shadid Lewis is full of lies and he cannot be honest with the Scriptures in the Bible and his own Quran. I just can't stand the guy spitting in the Gospel.
The Islamic Jesus is a fabrication.
The Islamic Jesus is corrupt.
Muhammad the false prophet lied about Jesus not being crucified! Shadid lost on this debate!

Hiwot said...

Mr. Lewis said that the Romans don't have any record of the event that Jesus was tried and crucified. As such he is discrediting his own Quran since the Quran didn't reject the event happened but Allah tricked them in believing that they killed Jesus but they actually killed someone else. Quran said the event happened but Mr. Lewis who is a Muslim attempted to prove this never happened.

Haecceitas said...

Shadid keeps on repeating the ridiculous but surprisingly common argument about there not being Roman records of Jesus's trial and execution. This is pretty embarassing because there are no extant Roman court records of the trial and execution of pretty much anyone from that time. So this has to be one of the weakest arguments from silence ever presented. At least Shadid gave a reference for the claim ("Jesus Mysteries" by Freke & Gandy, who could be called fringe scholars if it wasn't for the fact that their relevant credentials merit the "scholar" title only rather loosely).

Mentioning Tacitus was very relevant in this context because he would have had access to whatever records may have existed at his time and of course he did mention Jesus's death by crucifixion under Pilate.

Baron Eddie said...

I disagree with Shadid Lewis right from the beginning, in his Introduction when he said "In the name of allah ...... most merciful!"

I know that is not the topic but what he said is killingly wrong ...

Let us read what Quran says about this ...

In Surah Al-Baqara 191

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

In 193 it says

"And kill them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. "

In 216

"Killing is decreed for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

This is just few ... How is killing and terrorizing others is good for the Mulsims!

Allah wants the Muslims to terrorize and slay others! ...

Where is the mercy that he claimed?

Ugas said...

@ Jesus is Lord

you said " The Islamic Jesus is a fabrication"

The Koran says

Jesus was word of God
Jesus was Spirit of God
Jesus was born by Virgin Women
Jesus was Messiah.
Jesus was prophet of God
Jesus back life to dead people by God's permission.
Jesus spoke in the childhood.
Jesus knew the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel.
Jesus was a messenger to the Children of Israel.
Jesus came with Signs from our Lord.
Jesus healed those born blind and the lepers by God's permission.

So what is wrong with you, are these fabrications or true? which one you denying all these facts?.



rs roudh said...

Many non-Christian historians including Ehrman consider the Gospels to be the most valuable source of information concerning the historical Jesus. I do not know of a single respected non-Muslim historian who considers the Quran to be of any value whatsoever concerning the same. The contention that the Quran’s account of Jesus is more historical than the one found in the Gospels does not find any support amongst the vast majority of independent historians and cannot be maintained without the presupposition that Islam is true.

CorrosionX said...

What a shame. C.L. is running circles around Shadid. Is that the best muslim debater you guys can get these days? I guess the smart ones don't want to face you guys.

aaron said...

@CorrosionX
wish zakir naik would come out of his hidney hole for a debate since so many muslims like him and watch his logical fallacies get shut down. technically i want to see the whole IREF and IRF debate more experienced debators like david or sam etc. always curious to see their response once they get stumped

Fernando said...

@ Ugas...

really? trhe problem is with what teh qur'an does not say about Jesus: that He, having died and ressurected, is fully human and fully God...

capito?

SuperDonster said...

When Shadid debated C.L he debunked himself; his book; his "prophet"; his religion. The debate was about whether or not we can trust the Quran's version of Jesus. One of Shadid's points was that B. Erhman(against W.L.Craig) said that because the NT documents were 30-60yrs removed from the historical Jesus,they're not reliable or top-notch sources that scholars are looking for. Shadid forgot his Quran is +600yrs removed. Thus, by Shadid's own argument, the Quran is not a reliable source to speak about Jesus and can not be trusted. Shadid lost the debate as soon as he cited Erhman

sla said...

According to me , Shadid was right on spot when he claimed that Islam claims Jesus as a right man , messiah , prophet to Israel and Christianity only adds to it by claiming Jesus as a God incarnate and a sacrificial lamb who gave away his life for the sins of others .

Historical Jesus scholarship will unanimously agree that Jesus never thought himself as divine and never attached any salvific ramifications to his impending death .

chris J said...

This muslims love to pick and choose to suit thier agenda.
Absolutely Shameless!

Deleting said...

sla said, 'Historical Jesus scholarship will unanimously agree that Jesus never thought himself as divine and never attached any salvific ramifications to his impending death.'

Yet John chapter five Jesus tells the Pharisees that the scriptures speak of him, and chapter 17 he speaks if the glory he held with the father before the earth was and what else (ponder ponder) ah yes, 'without me you will die in your sins.' (Have to look up the chapter.)
Hey...wouldn't God say all those things?

Anthony Rogers said...

Sla said: "According to me , Shadid was right on spot when he claimed that Islam claims Jesus as a right man , messiah , prophet to Israel and Christianity only adds to it by claiming Jesus as a God incarnate and a sacrificial lamb who gave away his life for the sins of others ."

You are of course working backwards from the assumption that what Islam says about Isa is the whole truth, and then saying that Christians "add" to it. The truth is that the view of the followers of Christ, i.e. the view of Jesus that is taught in the apostolic Scriptures that prevailed over the Roman Empire and which continues to prevail to this day, is something from which Islam "subtracts". That subtraction also seriously attenuates even those things that Muslims formally agree with us on, i.e. such things as the humanity, prophethood, and messiahship of Jesus. In other words, since for Muslims Jesus is not the incarnate Word, He is not taken as the last Adam, the consummation of prophethood and all that the prophets were pointing to, or the reigning King over the redemptive kingdom of God. So even the formal points of contact between the Islamic Isa and the Jesus preached by the apostles do not amount to a material agreement.

Sla said: "Historical Jesus scholarship will unanimously agree that Jesus never thought himself as divine and never attached any salvific ramifications to his impending death ."

Scholarship on this matter is hardly unanimous. The vast majority of NT scholars are naturally Christians since Christians are the ones most likely to have an interest in scholarly pursuits on this matter. In addition, non-conservative scholars may largely agree in their conclusions, since after all the last thing they want to do is come to Jesus as the Light for fear that their hearts and deeds will be exposed, but the background theories crafted to support this common conclusion are wildly different, leaving us with no confident basis on which to accept the widdled-down and reductionistic view of Jesus that they offer.

Besides that, the naturalized Jesus of non-conservative scholars is not the supernatural Isa of Islam who is believed to have been really born of a virgin, to have performed miracles, and who ascended into heaven. Muslims are playing fast and loose here when they point to what is said about Jesus by liberal scholars. In fact, many liberal scholars say Jesus was a false prophet since in their ignorance they misinterpret various and sundry eschatological statements made by Jesus.

rs roudh said...

Shadid Lewis in his debate with C.L. Edwards quoted Bart Ehrman from his debate with William Lane Craig on the subject “DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD” The following is also a quote Ehrman from another debate he had with William Lane Craig:

“The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he got crucified, and so he couldn't be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who's squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God's suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him”. William Lane Craig V Bart Ehrman "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" (emphasis added).

According to Ehrman the one thing that is known about these early Christians is that they turned to their scriptures after the death of Jesus. Notice that according to Ehrman these early followers of Jesus did not reject the Jewish scriptures as corrupt but rather turned to them, in trying to make sense of Jesus’ death. Jesus’ crucifixion (death) even caused his followers to doubt that he was the Messiah. If a Gospel given to Jesus had really existed then Jesus’ followers would not have turned to the Jewish scriptures as they would have considered these to have been corrupted but instead they would have turned to the Gospel which Jesus had received from Allah. I do not however know of a single New Testament historian, whether Christian or otherwise, who believes that the early followers of Jesus rejected the Torah as corrupt but instead turned to a Gospel given to Jesus by Allah. This again shows that there is zero evidence that such a Gospel has ever existed or that Jesus and his followers were Muslims. If Shadid’s own scholar i.e. Ehrman is correct then this proves that Jesus and his followers accepted the Jewish Bible that existed in the first century as authentic scripture which is what we should expect as there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.



Zack_Tiang said...

I enjoy CL Edward's presentation... though I can feel the frustration/disappointment of Shadid's lackluster/hot-tempered presentation.

Why does he need to keep shouting and raising his voice like that?

Osama did the same thing in the last few previous debates...

Why are they so angry?