Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Ravi Zacharias Caught Lying About Credentials Again

In 2015, Ravi Zacharias was outed for manufacturing claims about his scholarship regarding being a visiting scholar at Cambridge University. This led to him acknowledging and then removing the claim from his website. This year, the same person who did the first investigation has done a second video demonstrating that Ravi has lied again, this time about studying quantum physics at Cambridge University:

Why does Ravi have the need to continuously pad his credentials? We all agree that lying is a sin, therefore as a leader of an international ministry, why doesn’t he seem to understand that making fraudulent claims about oneself is wrong? It’s simply unjustifiable. To call Ravi to be truthful in his actions and descriptions about himself, we are asking those who are interested in the truth to send Ravi an email at the following address: PR@RZIM.ORG

The subject line is as follows: Did Ravi Zacharias really study quantum physics at Cambridge?

The email body is as follows:

Dear Mr. Zacharias and Ms. Malhotra:

I write you in a spirit of inquiry, not challenge. Serious allegations, purporting to be carefully-researched and based on publicly available information, have been made that Mr. Zacharias has systematically exaggerated his academic credentials.

And while I have formed no conclusion as to the merits of these charges, I can see no harm in Mr. Zacharias publicly responding to them. Indeed, given the growing concern about these allegations, it seems that no legitimate purpose will be served by Mr. Zacharias continuing to remain silent.

In furtherance of the truth, might you kindly address the following questions?

Did Ravi Zacharias ever enroll in, or audit, a physics class taught by John Polkinghorne at Cambridge University?

Was Mr. Zacharias ever “a visiting scholar at Cambridge University”? If so, is there a reason that this claim was removed from his website after he was criticized for making it? How does Mr. Zacharias respond to the email statement allegedly made by the Cambridge Office of External Affairs that his attending classes at the University whilst on sabbatical at Ridley Hall would not have made him a visiting scholar at their University?

At page 205 of his autobiography, Mr. Zacharias writes about spending time at Cambridge University where, he says, “I was invited to be a visiting scholar.” Given that Mr. Zacharias’ sabbatical supervisor, Jeremy Begbie, has stated, in writing, that Mr. Zacharias was only a “visiting scholar” at Ridley Hall (which is not a constituent part of the University), might you kindly state who it was who invited Mr. Zacharias to be a visiting scholar at Cambridge University itself?

Mr. Zacharias has claimed to have been “a senior research fellow” at Oxford University. Is this claim true? Was the position in fact an honorary one? If so, is there a reason that in February of 2103 Mr. Zacharias said in an Apologetics315 interview “If I’m in an academic forum, then the fact that I’m a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall Oxford University, that’s a credential with which I work in the academy”? Is there a reason the entire Senior Research Fellow claim has been removed from his website?

Mr. Zacharias’s bio and publicity materials refer to him as “Dr. Zacharias.” Does Mr. Zacharias have a PhD or other academic doctorate? If not, how might he reply to the concern that his routine use of the title “Dr.” is likely to create a false impression in significant numbers of people?

The jacket of Mr. Zacharias’s book New Birth or Rebirth? says “Zacharias holds three doctoral degrees.” His publisher bios at Random House and Penguin refer to him holding multiple doctoral degrees. These make no mention of such degrees being honorary. What responsibility does Mr. Zacharias have to ensure that those promoting the sales of his books make clear that his doctorates are exclusively honorary? (This question may, of course, be disregarded if Mr. Zacharias has in fact earned an academic doctorate.)

Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in shedding light on these important issues.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

More details to follow.

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie

It seems odd that the Muslims at Hyde Park, the Muslims in Newcastle and Christian colleagues of Jonathan can all hold the same view of him. Either there is some crazy international conspiracy ongoing, or Jonathan has given the same negative impression of himself consistently to large groups of people. For starters we have a Christian colleague stating exactly the same thing that almost all other critics of him have said:

cc-2017-jm-karlandjonny

Let’s do a quick checklist:

  1. Does Jonathan respond only to simple criticisms of Christianity? Yes.
  2. Has he only ever presented rehearsed arguments? Yes.
  3. Does he know Hebrew or Greek? No.
  4. Does anyone take his “apologetics” “academy” seriously? No.cc-2017-jm-donation
  5. Is Jonathan egoistic? Yes.
  6. Does Jonathan like to plaster images of himself everywhere? Yes.

cc-2016-jm-jaypicswith jm

Okay, maybe we can forgive him for calling Muslims a cancer. Maybe we can forgive him for lying about the size of crowds attending his debates. Maybe we can forgive him for setting a bad example for his colleagues who insult and abuse those he disagrees with, claiming to humiliate people for the glory of Christ. Those things are to some extent character flaws that can be overlooked.

Yet, look at the first image presented. How does Jonathan proceed to disagree with a fellow Christian? By attacking his spelling. Of all things, Jonathan McLatchie who is pursuing a PhD, who is significantly older than I am in age, reduces himself to a spelling “apologist”. Not only does he like the comments being critical of the guy’s spelling, he proceeds to mock the guy about his spelling as well. Of all the things Jonathan is, he consistently demonstrates to Muslims and Christians alike that when disagreed with he immediately does three things:

  1. Threaten to block anyone who criticizes him.
  2. Mocks the person criticizing him.
  3. Likes comments of others engaging in the mocking.

This is a guy who wants people to take him seriously, but it is impossible that so many people from so many diverse backgrounds can walk away disagreeing with his behaviour without the problem being him. If it’s not myself, it’s Yahya Snow, if it’s not Yahya Snow it’s Paul Williams, if it’s not Paul Williams it’s Mansur, if it’s not Mansur it’s Darren Myatt, if it’s not Darren Myatt it’s Mustafa Ahmed, if it’s not Mustafa Ahmed it’s his University’s Chess team. I can literally write a paragraph or more of this immature and negative pattern of behaviour.

We sincerely pray that he can rectify his character.

Graphic: NT Reliability Comparison to Ancient Documents

Question:

This image has often been used to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament. What is your response to this?

nt_reliability1

Answer:

This infographic relies on two of the three defective principles that beginners make when it comes to textual criticism, namely the number of witnesses (manuscripts) and the age of the witness (manuscripts). I’ve previously written on these three defective principles as outlined by the textual critical scholar Leon Vaganay. Before we get into the textual critical problems with this infographic, we first need to examine the theological problems with it.

Theology

One of the first claims we normally associate with the use of this infographic bases itself on the fallacy of false equivalency. We are told that scholars and historians have no problem trusting and relying on the ancient works ascribed to Homer, Aristotle or Plato, so given that we have so many more manuscripts of the New Testament we should have even more trust and reliance on the New Testament as it compares to the quantity of manuscripts for the previously aforementioned ancient documents. The problem with this argument is that I don’t need the works of Homer, Aristotle or Plato for salvation. Rejecting, not reading, ignoring and discarding the works of those men does not affect my salvation, which is why we can generally rely on and trust them. Since whether or not they actually are reliable or accurate does not affect my life in any meaningful way.

However, when it comes to the New Testament, it’s a different story. We are told it contains the inspired words of God, that we need to rely and trust it for our eternal salvation, that denying and rejecting it would lead to our eternal damnation. The stakes here are quite higher. Rejecting the works of Tacitus does not send me to hell. Waking up one morning to find out that alterations were made to the writings attributed to Plato, has no consequence on me whatsoever. My entire worldview does not change, my salvation does not rest on my accepting or rejecting the works of Tacitus and Plato. Therefore, when it comes to theology, it is an honestly poor argument to make that if we can trust something that has no bearing on our salvation, then we can also trust something that allegedly has significant bearing on our salvation. This is a dishonest comparison by all means.

The Number

There are some 24, 000 manuscripts! That number is practically meaningless and useless for a number of reasons. To begin with, of the 24, 000 that this infographic claims exists, how many of them are within the first 300 years of Christianity? According to the  Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) there are only 67 manuscripts in total existing from this time period. That figure represents 0.27% of the total number of New Testament manuscripts. The vast majority of New Testament manuscripts were written after the 11th century CE, some 1100 years after the Messiah. So while the number is big, it is misleading.

The Date

The number is misleading because it is juxtaposed with the date range of 40-70 years “between the earliest surviving copies”. Seeing 24, 000 juxtaposed with an early date range is extremely misleading, leaving the impression that the number correlates with the date range. In reality, there are only 7 New Testament manuscripts that fall into the first 200 years of Christianity, all of which are extremely fragmentary. That represents a figure of 0.029% of all New Testament manuscripts that can possibly be ascribed to the date range given in the infographic.

Conclusion

While the infographic does provide somewhat accurate information, its use of that information to argue for the reliability of the New Testament is both misleading and dishonest. The arguments derived from the use of this infographic don’t endorse the claim of the reliability of the New Testament, but rather demonstrates that many Christians simply do consider their scripture to be equal in weight to the works of ancient peoples. The very fact that they choose to argue that if we can trust the ancient manuscripts ascribed to Plato and Homer, therefore we can trust the New Testament is to also say that Plato’s and Homer’s work stand on the same credibility level as that of scripture inspired by God. Rather than defend the holiness of scripture, such an argument truthfully undermines it, while falsely comparing what should be the work inspired by a holy and all knowing God, to that of mortal men.

and God knows best.

 

Missionary Mishap: Missing McLatchie

For what’s the 3rd time in as many months, Christians on Jonathan McLatchie’s “Apologetics” “Academy” have posted a lengthy discussion on popular and effective Christian apologists. It’s been over 12 hours and as expected, still no mention of Jonathan on his own academy group. You would think that maybe none of his friends were there or, colleagues who work with him on the “academy” were absent, but the case is, they were present and none of them decided to mention him in any capacity.

cc-2017-jm-apologistnotlisted1

The last time this occurred, he chided the group for participating in a “popularity” contest. Perhaps he thought third time would be the charm, but that did not turn out to be the case. Maybe the 4th time?

and God knows best.

Debate Event: Is the Bible the Absolute Word of God?

This evening there is a debate between Br. Mustafa Ahmed and Youth Pastor Angelos Kyriakides. The event will be held in the Muslim Apologetics Podcast Zoom Room, and the link to the room will be posted here just before the debate.

MAP Zoom Room: https://zoom.us/j/414859147

Debate Format: 

  • 15 minute Opening Statement (each).
  • 10 minute Rebuttal (each).
  • 5 minute Concluding Statement (each).

Moderator: Br. Yahya Snow of MAP, Blogging Theology and The Facts About Islam.

The debate is being recorded and there may be a question and answer session at the end of the debate. The Zoom Room can be accessed via any computer with a browser, on any Android device and on any iOS device.

poster new 2

and God knows best.

Exclusive: Muslim Immigrant Voting Plan to Change Laws in America

EXCLUSIVE – Recent investigations by major media outlets have exposed a massive conspiracy by American-born Muslims and immigrant Muslims to change laws in the United States of America. Several news agencies have indicated that the number of Muslim voters continue to increase each election cycle, with the number reaching a staggering one million voters. The US Council of Muslim Organizations, a well-known globally aligned Muslim group in the US, has publicly admitted to this ongoing scheme:

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, an umbrella group of two dozen Muslim advocacy organizations, said its yearlong “One Million Voters” campaign had surpassed its target, more than doubling the number of registered Muslim voters in America since the 2012 presidential election.

“We believe we’ve exceeded the one million mark,” said Oussama Jammal, secretary general of the group. “We’ve been mobilizing the community with voter registrations at mosques, schools and community events. That’s how we were able to make a difference this year.” – VOA News.

vote1

Muslims Voting

This umbrella Muslim organization operates two dozen Muslim lobbying groups that have drastically increased the rate of eligible Muslim voters in the USA. They freely admit to having doubled the number of Muslim voters, as well as to mobilizing their “communities” across the American heartland, involving mosques and schools. They aim to “make a difference” to the USA. CAIR, another major Muslim organization operating in dozens of states has also admitted to engaging in this major plan with the US Council of Muslim Organizations:

When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based rights organization, launched its 2016 Muslims Vote campaign, the goal was to lead 1 million Muslim constituents to the voting booths.

Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at CAIR, said campaign organizers across the nation would work within communities to make sure Islamic community centers have the tools they need to register voters. – VOA News.

The same article also mentions that this plan involved organizing Muslims in key swing states to elect candidates who sympathise and have allegiances with the Muslim communities across the US:

According to the Pew Research Center, Muslims represent just 1 to 2 percent of the country’s population, but they tend to live in strategic places — swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

“When the vote is close, then in fact, the Muslim vote in those swing states can play a significant role. They … will be seen as a significant minority community,” Georgetown University Islamic studies professor John Esposito said. – VOA News.

These Muslims openly admit to wanting to play a “significant role” by voting. This is not some conspiracy theory, this is open and freely available proof that Muslims are trying to change the political order in the USA to favour their communities. They are organizing communities, using globalist umbrella organizations, having campaigns, using schools and mosques to promote their political agendas.

hijab

Is this what the future America looks like?

Who knows what else they are planning that the mainstream media is not reporting?

 

« Older Entries