Tag Archives: crucifixion

Debate Review: “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” – Dr. Shabir Ally & Mr. John Tors

About a week ago I attended a debate between Dr. Shabir Ally and Mr. John Tors on the topic of, “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” (click the link to see the debate).

To begin with, I need to say that the church which hosted the event did an amazing job. The congregation at the North York Chinese Baptist Church were helpful, accommodating and very pleasant. The event was well-managed and I think all attendees would agree with me on this.

The topic itself is a little unusual (which is a good thing) as to debate if Jesus rose from the dead, one has to first grant the argument that he did die. In other words, we can’t debate this specific topic if we say he never died. This point seems to have been missed by both Muslim and Christian debate enthusiasts, it should also be noted that granting an argument for the sake of the argument, is not the same as accepting that argument. One may well wonder why a Muslim debater would put themselves in such a contentious position in the first place. The answer for this question was provided in the debate itself in which the question was asked, “what does it mean for Jesus to have died?” Christians answer this question differently and so the “type” of “death” was a focus of this debate. An easier way to have framed the debate would have been to make a minor change to the title to emphasise that the topic was about death:

Did Jesus Rise From “The Dead”?

Before the debate I read through most of the relevant articles on Mr. Tors’ website and while at the debate, I found myself a bit confused after his opening statement. Practically his entire opening statement is what I had read the night before and it can be found on his website in the form of two articles:

  • THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER AND THE EVANGELICAL BETRAYAL OF THE BIBLE: Exposing the Major Weapons Levied Against the Trustworthiness of the Bible
  • THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS: “Incompatible Contradictions” or Coherent History?

In fact, during the debate I was sharing these articles with both Christians and Muslims, most of whom expressed surprise at what seemed to be general confusion as to why Mr. Tors would prepare in such a way for a debate. That is to say that he largely used articles from 2015 and 2018 with no new research being presented or accounted for. The attendees had no need for Mr. Tors’ opening statement, just granting us 10 minutes to do some quick reading would’ve sufficed. Mr. Tors began the debate with two important points:

  1. We shouldn’t base our views on assumptions,
  2. We shouldn’t base our views on presuppositions.

Rather, he argued, we should look at the evidence itself first and if needed, then at works of scholarship. The problem he quickly found himself in was then ironic, as he seemingly argued that he had evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. This evidence turned out to be Mr. Tors just quoting the Bible. It was then I realised that had he believed in what he said at the start of the debate then he wouldn’t have assumed that the Bible was true or presupposed it as being factual. Indeed, it’s a tall order to hold him to his own words, but if someone lays out a specific methodology at the start of a debate then I largely hope that they would at the very least be superficially consistent but even this was not afforded to us (the audience).

This point did not seem to strike Mr. Tors at all and it left me completely bewildered at what he had hoped to achieve. Muslims don’t accept the Bible as a valid source for theology, and Christians don’t accept the Qur’an as a valid source for their theology, so what is achieved in ministering to Muslims in using a text we don’t accept? Dr. Ally at least attempted to reference both the Bible and the Qur’an throughout the debate. Mr. Tors or someone who works for his ministry later argued in the comments section (of the re-upload) of the debate video on YouTube that while the New Testament is a historical work, the Qur’an was not (in regards to Jesus) and so he did not consider any appeals to it as sufficient for the topic. This is despite the fact that he himself holds to a form of the New Testament text which is not wholly extant in any manuscript before the mid-medieval period (roughly from the 10th to 15th century CE). He holds to the Byzantine Priority position, a minority view in the world of Christendom.

Edit: 22.01.2020, Mr. Tors mentioned to me that he does not hold to the Byzantine Priority position but rather a Majority Text position. The difference is negligible but I thought it best to use the phrase he uses to describe his beliefs.

Oddly enough, Mr. Tors later argued that it didn’t matter what date the earliest extant (still surviving) manuscripts of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts came from. At that point in the debate I lost any hope in Mr. Tors advancing any form of a consistent argument. Either it is the dates do matter or they don’t, either it is the gospel narratives do have contradictions because the gospel authors focused on different elements of the story by design or there are no contradictions and they give the exact same narratives, either it is he is arguing for the New Testament to be a theologically preserved version of the best witness testimony or he is willing to apply historical standards to the gospels. It just seemed like he was willing to flip-flop on his positions without care for consistency, reasonableness or intellectual humility.

As a Muslim who is invested in these kinds of debates, I look forward to them with a great deal of anticipation. Some times that anticipation pays off in the form of the robust debates between Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. James White and some times they clearly don’t, as in this case. Mr. Tors’ primary (and seemingly only) argument for this debate therefore can be summarised as, “the Bible teaches that Jesus died and was resurrected, and this is true because the Bible teaches it”. While that may strike a chord with Christians, it doesn’t with the Muslims and it’s such an obvious point that I wonder if Mr. Tors cared for Muslims to even attend this debate in the first place. If one were to watch his opening statement, you would find him preaching directly to the Christians in the audience, word after word of caution about not allowing scholars and liberals to change their beliefs, to change how Christians should understand the Bible. Yet, I struggled to find an instance where he addresses the crowd as if there were Muslims in it, people who plainly do not accept the Bible as scripture. After all, he gave no reasons as to why Muslims should begin believing in the Bible, rather his focus seemed to be on keeping Christians Christian.

That is where a marked difference can be seen between Dr. Ally and Mr. Tors. Dr. Ally spent a few minutes at the start of his opening statement engaging with the crowd directly, he explained why he was there, what he hoped to achieve, what Muslims, Christians and those from other faiths can gain by being at the debate event. His words acknowledged the presence of other faiths in the audience, it provided a reason for us to pay more attention to what he said. Another point of note was the difference in composure and demeanour. While Dr. Ally was generally congenial and jovial, Mr. Tors at times appeared dismayed, upset or aggravated. This led to the second half of the debate being more contentious (which is not in itself a negative thing), giving rise to many instances of riposte between the speakers.

I’ve sat through classes by Dr. Licona and Dr. Habermas, evangelical scholars who are well renowned for their arguments regarding the positive evidence for the crucifixion and the resurrection. I’m writing a book myself on the topic of the resurrection, so I attended this debate to gain some knowledge that I could have hoped to engage with on multiple levels, but I left the debate event empty handed, there simply was not much presented on the Christian side of the topic that would allow me to analyze or engage with Mr. Tors’ arguments. In the end I had hoped for more substance but it was nonetheless a good event otherwise. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Tors in person, he was kind, shook my hands and engaged in brief but meaningful conversation, and for that I sincerely thank him.

and Allah knows best.

Teaching a Greek Christian the Truth About the Greek New Testament

While in Speakers Corner about two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the New Testament (and a few of its variants) along with the historicity of the Crucifixion narrative using my Nestle-Aland 28th Edition Greek New Testament…with a Greek Christian. This proved very opportune, as he could openly correct me had I lied or made a mistake about what the Greek New Testament said! I was excited to be put to the test and suffice it to say, I think the discussion went quite well.

We earlier tried to have the same discussion but an older missionary gentleman was listening in (as others do), and while this was not a problem, the moment I raised a problematic question he reacted in an absurd way that led to the conversation ending. Thankfully my Greek colleague was up for round two, where we summarized the first discussion and had a full length discussion on the above mentioned topics. It’s decidedly worth the watch, many thanks to the EFDawah YouTube channel for recording and uploading the dialogue with excellent quality!

and God knows best.

The Witnesses Of The Crucifixion & The Qur’an (Part 1)

We are happy to publish our latest video on the Qur’an and the Bible. We focused on how both books assess the validity of witnesses and the utility of these witnesses as it pertains to objective analysis by concurrent believers/ truth-seekers. How we determine what is true and what isn’t, is essential in our search for the truth, with this sense of reasoning in mind, please enjoy the video.

Watch the video on EFDawah’s YouTube Channel:

Or…

Watch the video on SCDawah’s YouTube Channel:

Don’t forget to like, share and subscribe to both channels.

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: McLatchie’s Mystery Math™

When promoting yourself as leading an “academy”, it might be in your best interest to know how to count. Unfortunately, McLatchie’s Mystery Math™ strikes again. In a previous incident, McLatchie argued that God was 1/3 of God, leading to much ire from the Christian community and much backpedaling to no avail. Today, McLatchie’s Mystery Math™ strikes again:

cc-2017-jm-refuteislam10mins2

If it’s any consolidation, the inability to count does indeed indicate the quality of argument that the video offers. That being, little to none. It does serve as a warning to the video about the leaps in logic, reasoning, bias that the ~14 minute video presents.

Looks like we weren’t the only ones to heed the warning about the quality of content from Jonathan.

and God knows best.

[Live] Debate: Is the Crucifixion a Fact?

Today at 2 PM (EST – New York, Trinidad), 7 PM (GMT – London) Br. Aqil Onque will be debating Pastor Angelos Kyriakides on the topic of the Crucifixion. The stream will go live on YouTube at the above mentioned times.

Questions for the debaters can be submitted in the YouTube Live video’s chat and will be read to the debaters during the Question and Answer session. Please indicate whether you are a Christian or a Muslim at the start of your question. Not all questions are guaranteed to be asked and the length of the Question and Answer session is dependent upon the debaters’ discretion.

and God knows best.

Upcoming Debate: Is the Muslim Denial of Jesus’s Death by Crucifixion Valid? – Br. Ijaz and Keith of Answering Islam

Quick Information:
Topic: Is the Muslim Denial of Jesus’s Death by Crucifixion Valid?
Debaters: Br. Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians and Keith Thompson of Answering Islam.
Date: Saturday 26th of September, 2015.
Time: 10 PM EST.
Location: Paltalk, Answering Christianity Room.
Moderator: Sister Waduha.
A little background on the Christian debater:
keith thompson

Keith Thompson of Answering Islam

Keith Thompson is a Christian apologist who runs Reformed Apologetics Ministries and has been writing for Answering-Islam.org since 2008. He is a debater having debated opponents such as Inamullah Mumtaz, Sami Zaatari, Nadir Ahmed, Peter Dimond and others. He resides in Canada and will be completing his seminary studies shortly.
This will be my (Br. Ijaz’s) third debate for the year, with one final (fourth) debate to be announced shortly. The final debate will be with a well known Christian scholar and will be televised (and is expected to be streamed live). The debate is to be held on Friday October the 9th, 2015 (tentative dating).


If you don’t use Paltalk and would still like to view the debate between Keith and myself, alternative arrangements may be made for a YouTube streaming of the event (tentative), or a recording should be available within a week’s time (on YouTube via Nazam44’s and MuslimByChoice’s channels).
cc-2015-debatewithkiethflyer
If you or someone you know is interested in debating me, do send a request via our contact us form.

and Allah knows best.

The Death of Christ is Meaningless

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As recently as November of last year I’ve been examining the nature of Christ’s “death”. I published a couple musings about it, didn’t receive much in the way of answers, as much as I did receive criticisms by one particular has been. Building on my studies and discussions with significantly more intelligent Christian missionaries and apologists, I decided to author a piece expressing more of my logical expansions on the topic at hand.

This is the result, a 1000+ word article that uses Christian references and explanations to describe the nature of Christ’s death, leading to a pretty interesting conclusion. Despite writing the article, my curiosity about the ‘death’ of a God is still there. I can’t fathom how an absolute, all powerful deity can perish, whether metaphorically or otherwise.  I suppose there’s much more to come from this area of study.

The article is available via the Muslim Debate Initiative’s website.

Sister Elisabeth S. had this to say about the article:

“This article is definitely a masterpiece. It’s exactly one of the questions that led me away from Christianity. As for Thabiti Anyabwile, my parents are huge fans of his, and met him after I converted to Islam, and put me in touch with him, and I asked him why he left Islam so shortly after his conversion, he listed his reasons, and I answered back explaining how those reasons were the very ones that led me to Islam, and never heard back from him – this is one of them. This is by far the best and clearest exposition of it I’ve read. May it be used to guide at least a few confused souls.”

Br. Paul Daniel, a Christian convert to Islam had this to say:

Well put together, I can picture less educated or interested persons clicking off and getting lost easily, but the facts are argued well
and the logic is theologically sound.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Jesus and YHWH Argue Against the Crucifixion

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

As is customary on this website, we do not appeal to the Qur’aan when investigating the Christian scripture. Rather, we look at the Bible and examine what it says, then we study a Christian scholarly exegesis, whereon we form our opinions and arguments. Does Jesus and YHWH argue against the crucifixion? Surprisingly to most Christians, they do! The very notion of God killing himself/ His own son because His laws which He commanded His creation follow were not able to lead man to salvation is very unmerciful, quite wrathful and vengeful. There are those amongst us who would say that such an interpretation is crude and rough around the edges, but if we are to be object, is a God who requires death for salvation more merciful than a God who does not? The answer is clear to those with understanding and sincerity.

The Old Testament

The sacrificial cultus of the Old and New Testaments, often find difficulty in harmonizing YHWH’s disdain, dislike and eventual hate for sacrifices:

“The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?

13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.

14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! – Isaiah 1:11-15.

He continues by saying:

“Yet you have not called on me, Jacob, you have not wearied yourselves for[a] me, Israel.

23 You have not brought me sheep for burnt offerings, nor honored me with your sacrifices. I have not burdened you with grain offerings nor wearied you with demands for incense.

24 You have not bought any fragrant calamus for me, or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses. – Isaiah 43:22-24.

YHWH, He’s tired of sacrifices, He sees them as are burdens, in the end its just bloodied hands. God is no longer honored with sacrifices, these offerings of sacrifice are meaningless, He has no pleasure in the blood of the sacrificial beings. A sacrifice will not benefit the followers of YHWH any longer, so why then do Christians emphasize the ‘sacrifice of Christ’, if YHWH Himself now detests such acts?

The New Testament

Jesus ratifies this message of anti-sacrifices by preaching a profound message found in the Old Testament:

For desire mercynot sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6.

He says twice:

But go and learn what this means: ‘desire mercynot sacrifice.’ For have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Matthew 9:13.

If you had known what these words mean, ‘desire mercynot sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. – Matthew 12:7.

Conclusion

From this, we understand that both Jesus the Christ and YHWH both agree with Islamic soteriology, that a specific sacrifice does not absolve the sins of all mankind, for God desires mercy (Rahma) and not sacrifice! Those who claim to love the Christ, must understand his words, in the sense that salvation is not earned by the death and unmerciful torture of one man, but by God’s mercy, not sacrifice!

On Hosea 6:6, we read from Adam Clarke’s Exegesis:

” I taught them righteousness by my prophets; for I desired mercy. I was more willing to save than to destroy; and would rather see them full of penitent and holy resolutions, than behold them offering the best and most numerous victims upon my altar.”

YHWH does not want more bloodshed and victims upon His altar, He is more willing to save than to destroy an innocent man’s life (Christ). This is the truth, as is mentioned by YHWH Himself, Christ and the Islamic faith.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

A Critical Study of Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is considered almost universally by Christians as a prophecy concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. They base their claim on verses applied to Jesus in the New Testament such as Matthew 8:17 that are taken from Isaiah 53. In this article we shall explore the chapter as analytically as possible and see whether the Christian claim has weight or not.

The context of Isaiah 53 actually begins in verse 13 in chapter 52. Superficially, some of the verses do seem applicable for Jesus, but, does the entire passage agree with the Jesus that is portrayed in the so called gospels? If the prophecy is really about Jesus then it surely follows that there should be no contradiction at all between the contents of Isaiah 53 with the life of Jesus according to the so called gospels[1]. For example, let us say we have a prophecy from Nostradamus that may at a glance seem to be about Ibn Anwar. So in the prophecy Nostradamus says,”that there shall arise a person in 2008 and 2009 who will debate with Christians a lot on the internet. He will be 50 years old and he will have many friends who will support him in his endeavours.” All right, so we’re in 2009. Everything Nostradamus mentions in his prophecy is true to the letter except for one thing, that is, my age. I am not 50 years old. Can any reasonable person say that the prophecy is truly about Ibn Anwar? The answer is obviously NO. Likewise, if there is even a single verse in Isaiah 53 that is incompatible with Jesus then the whole argument falters. Everything has to correlate with Jesus. With that said let us not waste any time and begin with verse 13.

Read more

« Older Entries