impressions of the event

7/25/2019 Impressions of the Event

1/33

Impressions of the Event

Praise be to Allah (God) the lord and creator of the heavens and the earth.Peace be upon Muhammad, his final messenger to humanity.

I was afriad that it might get weird. eally for my Men readers, have you ever noticedthat anything between you and a woman is always weird! "e honest## its always weird.$ever has a Muslim Man debated a %hristian woman. "ut I felt li&e giving Mary 'o achance to debate her beliefs in public.

hough the event was hugely attended by %hristians, everyone I met there wasincredibly nice. After the debate these %hristian fol& were &ind and friendly andrespectful, and treated me humanely despite my being he Muslim. After the debate,the %hristians came up to me with good *uestions, comments and &ind words. In all, Igained a lot of respect for the %hristian community. hese were good people who

believed in doing good and compassion. I do still thin& they have a lot of weird beliefs(the trinity, spea&ing in touges) and practices (singing in %hurch, baptism), but what doyou e+pect## I am still a Muslim who believes that %hristianity can be proven false. heywere nevertheless really, really nice. o there is a potential there to get along despiteour differences. he only time I felt hated or disrespected (though never threatened or indanger) was on stage, and only by the audiences un&ind reactions to me and theirclear cheering for Mary 'o harp when she tried to refute my arguements. I thought thatwas very disrespectful for me### there was a clear -oo- from the audiecne, most li&elya man## which was totally uncalled for. I did not appreciate his conduct. It was anunnecessary and inappropriate. orse the moderator, /avid ood said nothing. I amnot sure why. I did everything a gentleman should do. "ut I did not feel I was treated li&e

a gentleman when it was my time to spea&. o ma&e things worse, a %hristian womancame to me after the debate and said that I was hugely offensive to her and her beliefs.he didnt provide any e+amples. hen I politely as&ed what it was she was tal&ingabout she got mad and left (but now I thin& I &now what she is tal&ing about) o I feltmistreated by some, but $0 all.

And of course theres Mary 'o harp. I actually li&e her, I consider her a friend. 1romwhat I am hearing, right now she is the only %hristian oman apologist. If women everdecide to do what shes doing## then they have a real good e+ample to follow. Mary 'oharp is one of the greatest people Ive ever met. $o, I really mean that. he was politeand nice towards me during the debate. he is one of the very few %hristian women I

can get along with. In the past %hristian women have lost their cool when spea&ing tome, even though I always try to be on my best behavior and try to be as respectful aspossible (its harder than you thin&). "ut when it came to Mary 'o harp## I actually feltrespected and honored by her. his actually surprised me## in the past some womenhave been incredibly rude and disrespectful to me. "ut not this lady. he was nice andunderstanding. o there is a potential there to get along despite our differences."ut Imust say one thing in my defense, and I say this with all &indness and sincerity2 thosewho were offended (that %hristian woman) need to lighten up. 3ets face it2 I thin& when
http://www.confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/http://www.confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/


2/33

you cease being able to laugh at something, you die a little inside##and ta&e anotherstep toward fanaticism, haughtiness, and intolerance. 3augh, learn, 3ive. 3ife is way tooshort not to do these things.

My Responses to Mary Jo's Arguements:The Historicy Arguement.

After going bac& and re#watching the debate I feel now I can adress some of the issuesand points she brings up. I am not sure if Mary 'o started off with a prayer or not. "utshes not the first one who has done this, in the past other %hristian apologist have donethis, I am not sure why. "ut shes certainly free to do so. "ut anyways, she began bysaying the obvious that %hristians believe that 'esus died on the cross by omancrucifi+ion. he then *uotes the 4uran on the crucifi+ion2

hat they said (in boast), -e &illed %hrist 'esus the son of Mary, the Messenger ofAllah-5# but they &illed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) &nowledge, but onlycon6ecture to follow, for of a surety they &illed him not2# (Quran7289:)

And says the 4uran is on sha&y grounds because the crucifi+ion is -the most historicalevent in history-.

he mentions the historical record, including 'oesphus, acitus, 3ucian, he almud,etc. 1irst Ill adressed the two first century historians that mention 'esus alleged deathon the cross, however I didnt adresses 3ucian or the almud. ;ere I will do so2

he almud2 the Palestinian almud got written between the


3/33

$ow getting to 'oesphus. In My opening I attempted to discredit 'osephus. ;owevershe attempted to save the 'osephus account by saying even after the interpolationsfound in the te+t## it still mentions 'esus death on the cross. hat she didnt get## is thateven if the 'osephus te+t came from 'osepus hand### it is still not an eye witness

account. 'osephus was born in


4/33

As for aticus.... In his Annals, %ornelius acitus (99#8BD %=) writes that %hristians-derived their name and origin from %hrist, who, in the reign of iberius, had suffereddeath by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate- (Annals 89.77). In my openingthe issues that I raised againist acitus were this2 /id acitus really write this, or is this alater %hristian interpolation! 0r was acitus 6ust repeating what some %hristians told

him! Mary 'os response was that acitus was a careful oman historian and itsunli&ely that either of my ob6ections to the passage happened. Although I dont 8DDagree that acitus account was a fabrication done by =arly %hristians (although it iscertainly possible)## I believe that acitus was most li&ely repeating what he was told by%hristians about 'esus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were%hristians in acitus time, and that they believedthat Pilate &illed 'esus during the reignof iberius. his would not be independent confirmation of 'esuss death by crucifi+ion. Iwas glad that Mary 'o agreed with me that we dont &now where acitus recieved hisinformation from### further proving my point that we cant trust aticus. o the 'osephusand aticus accounts arent goodevidence.

As for first century evidence for Prophet Muhammads e+istence, one would only haveto turn to Patricia %rone, the author of the infamous ;agarism. he says2

-here is no doubt that Mohammed e+isted, occasional attempts to deny itnotwithstanding. ;is neighbours in "yFantine yria got to hear of him within two yearsof his death at the latest5 a Gree& te+t written during the Arab invasion of yria between>


5/33

he says that he Gree& word Somais never used for a disembodied spirit. ell, thatsnot true. ichard %arrier already covers this arguement. ;e does so well, I *uote himdirectly2

-he above chart ma&es the meaning of these Gree& words clear2 psychi&os and

pneumati&os are ad6ectives, meaning something is made of, or is li&e, or shares theproperties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychH and pneumarespectively. hen we loo& at the nouns, we find that their associations are clear2 one isused typically to refer to a living body, hence a body of flesh and blood (a search of theletters of Paul shows this to be his usual use of the word)5 the other, always to adisembodied spirit. he word sma, which they modify in 1 Corinthians89277, meansonly a distinct thing with volume and location, it does not entail what that thing is madeof or what its properties are or where it came from. Paul calls the resurrected apneumati&os sma to distinguish this pneuma from -the- Pneuma, or ;oly pirit, whichis not a sma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not everywhere,but has a distinct and localiFed e+istence as an individual. Paul clearly means to say

that when we are resurrected, we become li&e the ;oly pirit, and cease to be what weare when we were alive (a living body made of dust), but unli&e the ;oly pirit, our spiritis still organiFed as a new &ind of body, more li&e %asper the Ghost.- (ource)

he first esurrection account that we have has no empty tomb, no physicalappearances. hats as close as we can get to the views of the early church. e &nowthat the earliest %hristians did not believe in a bodily resurrection of 'esus. "ut they didbelieve that 'esus had been resurrected, at least in a spiritual manner. he letters ofPaul are the earliest &nown %hristian writings. Jet he never e+plicitly says that 'esuswas resurrected in bodily form. And in 8 %orinthians 892


6/33

Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesnt say that he did. $ow, if youthin& he did, youre committing a historical no#no here. hat you are doing is yourecommitting a &ind of -"ac& o he 1uture- &ind of historical analysis. Jou thin& you&now what is in Pauls mind because you &now what the later Gospel writers in the CDsand EDs, you thin& you &now what they said about a bodily resurrection, so you are

imposing that, bac& in time, on to Pauls mind because you thin& you &now better. Paulwas 6ust &ind of simple, but you &now what he really meant. "ut the earliest %hristiansdidnt mention any of these e+aggerated bodily things.

he second word I want you to loo& at is the word -raised.- ;e said -he was buried. Andhe was raised on the third day.- hats not the word -resurrected.- he word resurrectedis -anastasis @noun,- or -anistimi @verb.- he word that Paul used here for -raised- isthe word -egeiro- ## -egergetai.- hat is the word that is used throughout the $ewestament for the word -to wa&e up,- to -awa&en.- emember when the disciples wereon this boat and there was a storm and 'esus was asleep down below! hey werescared, and they went down below and they wo&e him up! @Matthew C2B9 hey used

that word -egeiro-2 hey -wo&e him up.- -'esus, help, help?- And all through the $ewestament we find this word -egeiro- being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for aspiritual awa&ening, or for 6ust wa&ing up.

e all &now that 'esus did not physically appear to Paul. Paul said he did. ;e wasblinded. ;e was &noc&ed off his horse. ;e was in the habit of hearing voices and seeinglights in the s&y. he people that were with Paul didnt see anyone. he people thatwere with Paul didnt hear anyone. ell, it depends on which account you ta&e. In oneaccount the men did hear the voice @Acts E2:, and in another account they didnt @ActsBB2E ## theres a biblical contradiction. hey didnt hear or see anyone. o, what &ind ofa -physicalappearance is this! In fact, this was after 'esus ascension. hat was

'esus doing! /id he ascend up above the clouds for a while, and his body hungaround, and he came bac& down and said, -;i, Paul. I want you to &now Im still hangingaround.- /o you really thin& there was a physical, spatially limited body of 'esushanging up there, coming down to Paul! $o, I dont thin& most %hristians today believethat.

he fact that Paul says that 'esus -ophthe- to him, and it was not a physicalappearance, gives us a clue that he does not intend us to believe that the otherappearances to these others were also physical. hey were -spiritual- e+periences,what they believed to be spiritual e+periences.

And, to nail this thing shut, 6ust a few verses later, Paul is tal&ing about theesurrection, right! ;es e+plaining what the esurrection means, and he says, in I%orinthians 8929D, -$ow, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the&ingdom of God.- o, how could he be tal&ing about a physical resurrection and turnright around and say -flesh and blood cannot inherit the &ingdom of God-! ;e obviouslyintends this to mean that 'esus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, notbodily.


7/33

The !uran on the"rucifi#ion$ S%oon theory

1or hundreds of years Muslims have come up with four different interpretations to the4uran 7289:. "elow Ill list them, however in order to stay on topic, Ill 6ust provideevidence for the swoon theory. hey are

8. 'esus soul left his body, and ascended to Allah.

he 'ews and omans then too& an empty body of 'esus and crucifiedthat. hen the empty body was probably misplaced, stolen

or buried somewhere. ;istorians believe 'esus died.

B. 'esus was put on the cross, however he survived.;e wal&ed away and came bac& to his disciples.


8/33

dead.'esus was on the cross for too short a period of time./eath by crucifi+ion wouldhave typically ta&en days. Proponents of the woon heory (li&e me) often argue thatthis could indicate that he was actually still alive. hey say it is medically impossible for'esus to have survived. "ut what evidence do we have that 'esus was dead! e arenot told of doctors. "eing mista&en for dead is not impossible.Ancient accounts of

misdiagnosed deaths e+ist. Pliny the =lder, writing in the >Ds and :Ds A/, collectsseveral of them in his $atural ;istory (:.8:>#8:E). Also surviving oman %rucifi+ion wasnot impossible. 'osephus watched one of three particular victims of crucifi+ion survive(3ife of 1lavius 'osephus K 7BD#B8). Plus 'esus most li&ely wasnt speared(ee John 8E2


9/33

As I said in my rebuttals, none of the Gospels or =pistles mention anyone dying for theirbelief in the -physicalresurrection of 'esus. he only martyrdoms recorded in the $ewestament are, first, the stoning of tephen in the "oo& of Acts. "ut tephen was not awitness. ;e was a later convert. o if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone."ut even in Acts the story has it that he was not &illed for what he believed, but for some

trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if hehad recanted. o his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his lastbreaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physicalresurrection of 'esus, but mentions only his belief that 'esus was the messiah, and wasat that moment in heavenAnd then he sees 'esus##yet no one else does, so this wasclearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believeearlier appearances were any different.

he second and only other -martyr- recorded in Acts is the e+ecution of the Apostle'ames, but we are not told anything about why he was &illed or whether recanting wouldhave saved him, or what he thought he died for.In fact, we have one independent

account in the 'ewish history of 'osephus, of the stoning of a certain -'ames the brotherof 'esus- in >B A./., possibly but not necessarily the very same 'ames, and in thataccount he is stoned for brea&ing the 'ewish law, which recanting would not escape,and in the account of the late Bnd century %hristian hagiographer ;egesippus, asreported by =usebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, 6ust li&etephen, solely for proclaiming 'esus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.@7

o nobody died for any belief in the -resurrection-. %hristian apologists need to stopusing that arguement.

Inanna$ agan Influences on"hristianity

0rginally Mary 'o harp wanted to debate me the Pagan Myth influences on%hristianity. I wasnt interested and offered to debate either was 'esus crucified or hoas 'esus. ;ence this topic. Also this topic is misunderstood. hat I mean when I bringup pagan saviors is not that the original %hristians copied and stole the idea ofworshipping a crucified deity from the umerians, etc but that the story of a crucifiedand resurrected deity is $0 uni*ue to %hristianity. ather its been done before. his

gets embarrsing for my %hristian friends. he fact is the umerians used to worshipthe crucified and resurrected Inanna (the "abylonian Ishtar, Goddess of 3ove and-4ueen of ;eaven-) around 89DD ".%.=. @9 And of course theres Appolonis of yana.

Around the 7th century Anti#%hristian writers were pointing out stri&ing similaritiesbetween 'esus and Apollonius of yana. Apollonius was a $eo#Pyhagorean teacherwho was born 6ust before the %hristian era. Apollonius was referred to as the on ofGod, did miracles, wa s &illed, was -resurrected- in front of his followers and ascendedinto heaven. o to my %hristian friends, the story of 'esus is $0 uni*ue. ather its


10/33

been done before. Mary 'o tried to argue that the story of Innana is different, and Iagree the main story of Innana is different than the one of 'esus. ;owever the fact isthat she was crucified and resurrected. here is no denying that fact. And Apolloniuswas also resurrected and referred to as the son of God. o the story is not uni*ue, itsbeen done before. Many times in fact.

hat about Islam! /oes Islam also have paganistic roots! $o it doesnt. he ProphetMuhammad re6ected idolatry his entire life, he was never seen bowing to the false gods,and he adhered to the religion of Abraham &nown as ;anafi. I already covered thisarguement in my first debate review.

Mis*uotes from the !uran a+out the early "hristians an( the,i+le$-hat the !uran says a+out the "rucifi#ion of "hrist

;owever the 4uran clearly says the "ible ("oth the 0ld and $ew estaments) arecorrupt many times. ;ere are the 4uotes I brought up from the Quranto prove it duringthe debate2

%an ye (o ye men of 1aith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you!# eeing thata party of them heard the ord of Allah, and perverted it &nowingly after theyunderstood it. (QuranB2:9)

hen woe to those who write the "oo& with their own hands, and then say2-his is fromAllah,- to traffic with it for miserable price?# oe to them for what their hands do write,and for the gain they ma&e thereby. (QuranB2:E)

hat they said (in boast), -e &illed %hrist 'esus the son of Mary, the Messenger ofAllah-5# but they &illed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear tothem, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, butonly conecture to follow, for of a surety they &illed him not2# (4uran 7289:)

here are many other verses from the 4uran that clearly say the "ible has been badlycorrupted which the reader can refer to another article I wrote else where @>. "ut Mary

'os misrepresentation of the conte+t of the 4uran is nothing new. %hristians have beenmisreading the 4uran and coming up with their own interpretations of what the 4uran istal&ing about it. he worse interpretation of the 4uran Ive heard was Mary 'osinterpretation of the 4uran >8287. he verse reads2

0 ye who believe? "e ye helpers of Allah2 As said 'esus the son of Mary to the/isciples, -ho will be my helpers to (the wor& of) Allah!- aid the disciples, -e are

Allahs helpers?- then a portion of the %hildren of Israel believed, and a portion
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/Full-Review-of-Debate.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/Full-Review-of-Debate.html


11/33

disbelieved2 "ut e gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and theybecame the ones that prevailed. (Quran>8287)

Mary 'o harp ma&es up her own interpretation of this verse and says the disciples hadthe gospel, therefore Muslims cant argue that the $ew estament has been corrupted. I

feel li&e she misunderstood what I said in my first rebuttal, the 4uran clearly saysthe !ew "estamenthas been corrupted in 4uran 7289:. 0ther verses which spea& ofthe %hristians corrupting their message and their boo& would be the Quran9287#89.hese verses clearly say %hristians corrupted their message and that includes theirscriputure (he entire !ew "estament). o her arguement doesnt really hold there.

The ro+lems %ith

aul

ome of the debate focused on the issues of Paul of arsus and his credibity. Indefense of Pauls credibility### Mary 'o said that Paul went up to 'erusalem and spo&ewith the disciples and tal&ed to them, as well as lived with them (ee Galatians B fore+ample). ;owever I argued that we cant trust Paul because he never &new 'esus.Paul seems unaware of 'esus life on earth. As G.A. ells points out (Pauls epistles)-they give no indication of the time or place of 'esus earlthy e+istence. hey never referto his trail before a oman offical nor to 'erusalem as the place of his e+ecution. heynever mention none of the miracles he is supposed to have wor&ed- @: . o $one ofPauls epistles say anything about 'esus. $o virgin birth, *uotes nothing 'esus said,never mentions 'ohn the "aptist, 'udas or Peter denying 'esus three times. Paul

seems completely unaware of 'esus life. Morever he was not an eye witness to 'esuslife. o there are no reasons for us to believe anything he says.

Paul, we &now, never claimed to have met 'esus. And Paul tal&ed about a lot of thesame issues and would have benefited from *uoting 'esus, for e+ample, on divorce ##Paul tal&ed about divorce a lot, and Paul said there should be no divorce. ;e forgot tota&e into account the fact that 'esus did allow for some divorce, in some case. ;econtradicted 'esus. o, Paul seemed to be pretty ignorant. I &now this is an argumentfrom silence, but wouldnt it have been good evidence if Paul had said something! Itwould have been good evidence if Paul had told us a few things about this man, 'esusthat he supposedly had met physically.

3isten to what Paul says in #omans


12/33

0f course there is a really good boo& called 0rthodo+y and ;eresy in =arliest%hristianity by alter "auer. ;e documents that the early 'ewish %hristians were atodds with the Pauline Minstry. Its a really good boo&, I highly suggest everyone readsit.

The Truth a+out theospels

Its a fact, all "iblical cholars agree on that we dont &now who wrote the Gospels. edont &now what their sources were. All scholars agree that the Gospels are allannoymous. "elow I *uote some *uotes from scholars who say so2

he articles on the Gospels in the 0+ford %ompanion to the "ible (8EE


13/33

here are many other *uotes I can *uote, but to save time and space I thin& these willsuffice. heyre not biographies. hey might contain some facts about 'esus but thatsall we have. In a future essay Ill try to comment more about this. he point of mebringing this up was to show that the Gospels simply cannot be ta&en as historicalannals of 'esus### rather they are religious propaganda. he gospels were written in the

second half of the 8st century long after 'esus left the earth, and derived primarily fromoral traditions about his speeches and activities5 oral narrations are adatped andrewor&ed with each retelling. he gospels were not ob6ective but passionate2 they had atheological purpose and were writing for small groups of believers mostly outside ofPalestine. hen it comes to the $ew estament gospels, eve got third# and fourth#hand testimony. eve got anonymous writers. eve got people whose character isimpugned by telling lies and by being under emotional distress. eve got things that wecant chec& out. e have an obvious progression, evolution of events from simple tofantastic embellishments. o, I dont call this strong evidence. It is some &ind ofevidence, I agree. Its something.

After thoughts: 1oo0ing to the futureof Islamic Apologetics

3oo&ing bac&, I thin& I did say something offensive. I said that the disciples of 'esuswere slow and dim witted. 0f course I read this in the Gospel of Mar&, but I realiFe that Iwas out of line saying that. o I apologiFe to any %hristians I may have offended. Andnow I realiFe why that woman was so offended. "ut I dont care, its not li&e Ill ever seeher again. If she was so offended by the statement, she needs to rela+. 0f course my

/ad did not help, in fact he made things worse trying to tal& to her. he ran away##either from my dad or because I &ept ignoring her## but that was the only weirde+perience I had during the debate. 0f course there was also another woman whocame up to me (I dont thin& I have ever been aporoached by so many %hristian womenbefore) and she said she would -pray- for me. he didnt even &now my name.

1or the past four years I watched from the sidelines as Islamic apologists were debatingand arguing againist %hristian and atheist apologists. $ow, I am actually an Muslimapologist. 3et me ma&e it clear that I am $0 an Ahmedyyia Muslim. I am a unni(0rthodo+) Muslim. I dont support most of their views. I support and believe the beliefthat 'esus survived### however there is one more e+planation to the 4uran 7289: that

e+plains everything, including the fact that the original resurrection was spiritual, whatmost historians agree to what happened to 'esus during the crucifi+ion, etc. Its a verypowerful e+planation of the facts that will disprove the resurrection and agree historicallyof what happened to 'esus. hat is it! I am not going to give any spoilers away, butne+t year inshallah, if able to debate it with a %hristian, lets 6ust say, It will finally provethe Quran7289:. It will be a very historically sound e+planation.


14/33

3oo&ing to the future, I hope to become more scholarly, professional and respectfulwhen discussing religion. $o longer do I go to Anti#Islamic websites and fight with them,no longer do I entertain discussions with hate mongersIslam bashers. If I &eep doingthis, I am never going to get any where. 1rom now on (BDDE) I only discuss religion withscholarly people.

I am trying very hard to become less li&e /avid and $abeel and more li&e ichard%arrier, professional, scholarly, etc. I thin& I am more or less suceeding in my goals.0nly with the help of Allah, the only God who e+ists, will I be sucessful in doing what Iwant to do### spreading the truth of Islam.

I thin& things are becoming better for Muslim Apologists. e have people "assamNawadiand habir Ally who &now what their doing. And then there are people li&e meand 0sama Abdullahwho still have a long way to go. ;owever we are improving.hings are getting better. "ut my advice to Muslim Apologists would be avoid large andcomplicated topics such as Is Muhammad a Prophet of God, and rather focus on

smaller topics2 ho was 'esus, as 'esus crucified,etc. I thin& thats the best way togo.

"onclusions

In the end, I have no hard feelings. I thin& Mary 'o harp was a very nice lady. And Ithin& she won the debate. "ut again I am not impressed with her arguements for%hristianity, especially her defense of the physical ressurection. In fact I am notimpressed at all with the answers most %hristian apologists have to say about their

faith. A lot of %hristian apologists are masterful communicators while Muslim Apologists,sometimes find it very difficult to communicate with others about their faith. 0f course/avid ood and $abeel 4ureshi usually get carried away when discussing %hristianityor Islam. hey even become insulting. "ut not this woman. he &ept her cool and shewas fun to wor& with. I loo& forwarded to debating her again. henever she wants shecan contact me. In terms of production value, there is a high definition video of thedebate here. It loo&s really good.

All in all, it was a superb time. I learned a lot, . I have already than&ed in person thosewho bore most of the burden of bringing this event to fruition##most especially PastorGeorge aiege and $abeel 4ureshi who all wor&ed very hard. I am honored that Mary

'o harp flew all the way from e+as to Michgian for this debate, and hear me defend abelief she certainly didnt share. Peace and blessings be upon this lady. I may have lostthe debate## but at least I won a new friend, Mary 'o harp.

2otes an(,i+liography
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/http://www.answering-christianity.com/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM11PachwYA&feature=channel_pagehttp://www.call-to-monotheism.com/http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/http://www.answering-christianity.com/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM11PachwYA&feature=channel_page


15/33

@8 1or the e+act reference see Massey, Gerald, &'erald Masseys ectures* "he+istorical Jesus and Mythical Christ,- 8EDD

@B More detailed information and references to other discussions on 'osephus may befound in2 "ruce, 1. 1. Jesus and Christian rigins utside the !ew "estament.=erdmans, 8E:7, %harlesworth, 'ames ;. Jesus -ithin Judaism. /oubleday (Anchor"oo&s) 8ECC, 1rance, ichard . "he .vidence for JesusIntervarsity Press, 8EC>.

@ 1or more on where the 4uran says the "ible has been corrupted see =hteshaamGulam2 hat the 4uran says about the "ible!(BDDE)

@: G.A. ells page 7

@C Oee, Joung, and 1roelich, 8E>9, p. 99

@E =hrman (BDD


16/33

Was Jesus Crucified? (2008)

Ehteshaam examines both claims from Christianity and Islam on Jesus last hours on earth.

Ehteshaam ro!es that the "ible suorts the #uranic account that Jesus $asn%t &illed on the

Cross. 'his essay also clarifies minsconcetions "oth Christians and uslims ha!e on the #uranreardin the Crucifixion.

Ehteshaam *ulam

Christians claim from the "ible (Colosians2+,- 1 Corinthians,/+1- etc.) that Jesus died bycrucifixion and then $as resurrected three days later. o$e!er uslims claim from

the Quran(Quran-+,/31,/8) that Jesus $asn%t &illed nor crucified. 4o $ho%s tellin the truth?

5re Christians riht or are the uslims riht? 'he urose of this essay is to sho$ that theuslims are correct Jesus $as not &illed on the cross. I%ll ro!e this from the "ible Early

Christian history and Early Christian "oo&s. I%ll also clarify many misconcetions about the

#uran%s osition on Jesus crucifixion.

The Historical Record

4ome Christian 5oloetics claim that Jesus had to ha!e been &illed on the cross due to thehistorical record. 'hey claim that there are se!eral documents in the ,st century that ro!e that

Jesus $as crucified. o$e!er the fact is that these 6sources6 of the crucifixion of Jesus come

from authors $ho li!ed afterthe alleed crucifixion of Jesus.none of their accounts ser!e aseye$itness e!idence for any alleed crucifixion of Jesus. 'here $ere o!er 70 historians in the ,st

century in the oman $orld. 9et only t$o non1Christian sources in the entire ,st century

mention that Jesus $as crucified. ere I%ll analy:e both Josehus and 'acitus sources and exlain$hy they shouldn%t be trusted as e!idence.

Josephus Flavius the Je$ish historian li!ed as the earliest non1Christian $ho mentions a

crucified Jesus. 5lthouh many scholars thin& that Josehus% short accounts of Jesus(inAntiquitiescame from interolations eretrated by a later Church father (most li&ely

Eusebius) Josehus $as born in 3 C.E. $ell after the alleed crucifixion of Jesusand that uts

him out of rane of an eye$itness account. oreo!er he $roteAntiquitiesin ; C.E. afterthe*osels $ere $ritten< 'herefore e!en if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand his

information could only ser!e as hearsay.

Tacitus the oman historian%s birth year at 7- C.E. uts him $ell after the alleed death of
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.html


17/33

Jesus. e i!es a brief mention of a 6Christus6 in hisAnnals("oo& => 4ec.--) $hich he $rote

around ,0; C.E. 'he roblem $ith 'acitus is he i!es no source for his material.5lthouh many

ha!e disuted the authenticity of 'acitus% mention of Jesusthe !ery fact that his birthhaened afterthe alleed crucifixion of Jesus and $rote theAnnals durin the formation of

Christianity sho$s that his $ritin can only ro!ide us $ith hearsay accounts.

5oloist Christians embarrass themsel!es $hen they un$ittinly or deceti!ely !iolate the

rules of historiorahy by usin after1the1e!ent $ritins as e!idence for the e!ent itself. ot

one of these $riters i!es a source or bac&s u his claims $ith e!idential material about thedeath of Jesus. 'herefore there is no historical e!idence that Jesus died on the cross.

Was Jesus Crucified according to the Bible?

@aul reaches that sal!ation can be obtained throuh belie!in that Jesus $as &illed and

resurrected in 1 Corinthians,/+,-. If there is no crucifixion and resurrection then there is no

Christianity. 'hat%s the $hole oint of Christianity. o$e!er this story of a 64on of *od6 comin

and bein &illed and bein resurrected is not uniAue. 'his story actually existed beforeChristianity came in the ,st century. Bor examle the 4umerians used to belie!e that their to

*oddess Inanna (the "abylonian Ishtar and *oddess of o!e #ueen of ea!en) $as striedna&ed and crucified and rose from the dead. 'his story $as erser!ed in clay tablets datin o!er

a ,000 years before Christ. 4o the idea of $orshiin a crucified deity did re1date Christianity

and had entered Je$ish society $ith @alestine. (4ource ichard Carrier%s online 5rticle).

Was Jesus Crucified accordin to the "ible?

(4ecial than&s to Doctor a&ir ai&and the late 5hmed Deedatfor their $or& on this subFect.5ll aruements are ta&en from both their debates resecti!ely. I claim no oriinality here).

"efore ettin to the Crucifixion $e need to loo& at $hat @aul (the earliest $riter of the e$'estament his eistles are dated /0170 C.E.) says about resurrected bodies. @aul says in 1

Corinthians,/+-21-- that resurrected bodies are sirtualised. 'hey are not hyiscal bodies li&e

$e ha!e. Jesus says the same thin inLuke20+2317 esurrected bodies are sirtual and nothyiscal. (5lso seeMatthew22+013). o$ it ets interestin no$here in the *osels

ofMatthewMarkLukeorJohndoes it say that Jesus $as resurrected. In the $ords of Dr.ai&

6ot a sinle !erse in any of the *osels mention that Jesus $as resurrected.6

5fter the alleed crucifixion Jesus comes into the uer room to meet his disciles. 'he

disciles ho$e!er $ere terrified and scared of Jesus. 'hey thouht he $as a sirit.

(4eeLuke 2-+71-) 'he disciles $ere not eye1$itnesses to the alleed crucifixion of Jesus infact they all ran a$ay from him after he $as arrested (Mark,-+/0). o$e!er Jesus $anted to

ro!e he $as not a sirit rather he $as hysical. Jesus tells his disciles that he $as not a sirit

or resurrected. Jesus sho$s his hands and his feet. e then as&s his disciles if they ha!e anyfood and they i!e him broiled fish and honeycomb and he eats. 'his ro!es Jesus $as not

resurrected or sirituali:ed. ather he $as ali!e durin and after the crucifixion. (5ain

seeLuke2-+71-). If Jesus had been resurrected he $ould%!e been a sirit accordin to his o$n

$ords (Luke20+2313) and @aul%s $ritins (1 Corinthians,/+-21--). o$e!er this $as not the
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.htmlhttp://video.google.com/videosearch?q=was%20christ%20really%20crucified&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wvhttp://www.jamaat.net/crux/crucifixion.htmlhttp://www.jamaat.net/crux/crucifixion.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.htmlhttp://video.google.com/videosearch?q=was%20christ%20really%20crucified&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wvhttp://www.jamaat.net/crux/crucifixion.html


18/33

case. Jesus ro!ed he $as a hysical body.

5ccordin toMark ,7+, andJohn 20+, ary aadelne oes to the tomb of Jesus. 'he Auestionhere is $hy should ary o to the tomb after the crucifixion of Jesus? If you read Mark ,7+, she

$ent to his tomb to annoit or to rub Jesus%s body. "ut if Jesus $as dead $hy $ould she need to

rub or annoit his dead body? It ma&es more sense that Jesus $as ali!e. ary $as one of theeole $ho $itnessed the alleed crucifixion of Jesus and $as one of the eole $ho a!e a

burial bath to Jesus. 4he must%!e seen life in him and &et Auiet about it. 'he stone also $as

mo!ed out of the tomb $hen ary aadene oes to the tomb (Mark,7+-). E!en the $indinsheets (that $ere used to co!er Jesus durin his burial) $ere un$ound and ut aside. 4o $hy

should the $indin sheets be un$ounded and the stone remo!ed? If Jesus really $as resurrected

then he $ould be sirituali:ed thus he $ould%!e been able to mo!e and ass throuh the sheets

and the stone bloc&in the tomb. 'hus this ro!es that Jesus came out a hysical body not asirtual body.

In John 20+,/ Jesus sees ary $eein. Jesus then comes to her and ary sees that Jesus is

disuised as a ardener. o$ $hy $as Jesus disuised as a ardener? Do resurrected bodies loo&li&e ardeners? e $as robably scared of the Je$s. If Jesus $as resurrected then he $ould be

sirtuali:ed. 5nd he $ouldn%t need to be afraid of the Je$s because accordin to ebre$s ;+23 a man dies only once. 5fter that is Fudement day. Jesus says in u&e 20+7 resurrected bodies

can%t die once they are resurrected. 5fter ary reali:es that it%s Jesus $ho has come bac& she

rushes to him in John 20+,/1,71,3. Jesus then tells her not to touch him not (John 20+,3). erobably didn%t $ant her to touch him because it $ould hyiscally hurt him if she did. Jesus then

says he has not yet ascended to the father in John 20+,3. 'his means that Jesus had not yet been

dead. Jesus ne!er said he $as resurrected11 ro!in that he $as ali!e. In ar& ,7+,,11 the

disciles of Jesus hear that Jesus $as ali!e from ary adalene. In atthe$ ,2+81-0 theJe$s as&ed Jesus for a miracle. Jesus then calls the Je$s an e!il and adulterous eneration Jesus

says that the only miracle they $ill see is the sin of Jonah+

'hen some of the @harisees and teachers of the la$ said to him 6'eacher $e $ant to see a

miraculous sin from you.6e ans$ered 65 $ic&ed and adulterous eneration as&s for a

miraculous sin< "ut none $ill be i!en it excet the sin of the rohet Jonah.Bor as Jonah $asthree days and three nihts in the belly of a hue fish so the 4on of an $ill be three days and

three nihts in the heart of the earth. (Matthew ,2+81-0)

E!eryone &no$s the story of Jonah111 Jonah ran a$ay from reachin to his eole ots$allo$ed by a $hale and then sit out three days later. "ut ho$ $as Johah in the belly of the

$hale. e $as ali!e. Jonah sur!i!ed his ordeal. 5nd same thin here Jesus is sayin that he $ill

be li&e Jonah he $ill also sur!i!e his ordeal11 li&e Jonah did. Christians ho$e!er say its a timefactor issue. o$e!er Jesus didn%t furfil the 6time factor6 here111 Jesus $as in the tomb for , day

and 2 nihts. Jesus $as alleedly crucified on Briday111 then on 4unday ary $ent to the tomb.

4o Jesus sur!i!ed the crucifixion. e $as ali!e the entire time. If Jesus sur!i!ed there $as no

resurrection. o death of Jesus11then no resurrection. o Death of Jesus no esurrection11 no

Christianity.


19/33

5 ist of @roofs that Jesus sur!i!ed and didnGt die on the cross

'he follo$in is a list of e!idences from the *osels that Jesus $as ali!e and didnGt die on the

cross+

,.) Jesus $as on the cross for only three hours. ItGs not ossible for anyone to die three hourson the cross. 5s 5hmed Deedat says H@onitius @ilate &ne$ from exerience that no man can die

so soon by crucifixion he susected that Jesus $as ali!e. (Mark ,/+--)

2.) JesusGs t$o cross mates $ere ali!ero!in that e!en Jesus $as ali!e.

(Mark,/+2Luke2+;1-John,;+2).) Jesus les $ere not bro&en by the omans. Burhter e!idence that Jesus $as ali!e and

sur!i!ed the crucifixion. (John ,;+)

-.) 'he stone $as remo!ed and $indin sheets $ere un$ound. @ro!in that Jesus $as ali!e.(Mark,7+,-John20+,3)

/.) Jesus $as disuised as a ardener. Why $ould esurrected bodies need to be disuised as a

ardener? 'his only ma&es sense if Jesus $as tryin to hide from the Je$s and omans. e $as

hidin in fear that they $ould &ill him.7.) 'he 'omb of Jesus accordin to "iblical scholars $as bi and saciousthis is only

necessary if Jesus $as ali!e.3.) Jesus forbids ary adalene from touchin him. 'his is because JesusGs hysical body

$as hurt and not yet fully healed. It $ould hurt Jesus if ary touched him. (John 20+,/1,3)

8.) Jesus says that he had not yet ascended unto his father $hich means he $as ali!e.

(John20+,3);.) ary adalene $as not afraid to reconi:e him. @ro!in Jesus $as ali!e. (John20+,7)

,0.) In the uer room Jesus sho$s his hands and feet to sho$ he $asnGt a sirit but he $as

ali!e. (Luke2-+71-;),,.) 'he Disciles $ho $ere not there durin his alleed crucifixion $ere o!erFoyed to see

him. 'hey $ere o!erFoyed because he $as ali!e. (4ee abo!e !erse),2.) Jesus eats broiled fish and honey comb to ro!e he $as ali!e. essurected bodies donGtha!e hysical bodies therefore resurrected bodies donGt need to eat. (Luke2-+71-;)

,.) 'he disciles hear from ary adalene that Jesus $as ali!e. (Mark ,7+;1,,)

,-.) 'he sin of JonahMatthew,2+-0. 'he comletion of the sin of Jonah is only if Jesus

sur!i!ed his ordeal as Jonah before him sur!i!ed his.

4o in short Jesus $as ut on the cross but he didn%t die. 5fter he aeared to his disciles heascended into hea!enMark,7+,; ($hich "iblical scholars say is a later addition and not in the

most ancient manuscrits) andLuke2-+/,. 'hus the s$oon theory (that Jesus fainted on the

cross and came bac& three days later after healin himself in the tomb) !indicates the #uran%saccount on the crucifixion. Without the Crucifixion and 6resurrection6 of Jesus11 Christianity is

retty much nothin. 5nd I%!e Fust ro!ed that Jesus didn%t die on the cross11 therefore

Christianity falls aart and is nothin. #uic&ly touchin on the alleed resurrection of Jesus11there are absoultely no historical records for the resurrection of Jesus. one $hatsoe!er. What

does this tell you? It tells you its Fust a myth the early Christians (robably the second eneration

Christains) made u in order to et con!erts. o odern istorian in their riht mind $ill e!er

say that Jesus $as resurrected11 because it ne!er haened. e $as resusated if anythin. 5nd


20/33

aain this !indicates the #uranic statement that they didn%t &ill Jesus nor crucifiy him but it Fust

loo&ed li&e they did (#uran -+,/3). It%s my uess that @aul and the other early Christians $ere

robably reachin some sort of sirtual resurrection of Jesus (@robably they did so by these*ree&Koman myths of *ods and *oddess bein resurrected) not a hyiscal resurrection.

Was Jesus substituted on the Cross?

"y Ehteshaam *ulam

uslims claim that somebody other than Jesus $as ut on the cross on the day of the crucifixion.

'he claim $as first made by uslim scholar 5l1"aida$i (,227170 C.E.) $rites that Jesus told

his disciles in ad!ance that $hoe!er !olunteered $ould o to hea!en. 'he follo$in narrationrecorded in the #ur%anic exeesis of Ibn Lathir (Who $as an Islamic scholar and a commentator

on the Quran) is commonly told by uslims as the authentic account of $hat haened on the

day of the crucifixion by orthodox 4unni scholars+

Ibn 5bbas said HJust before 5llah raised Jesus to the ea!ens Jesus $ent to his disciles $ho$ere t$el!e inside the house. When he arri!ed his hair $as driin $ith $ater (as if he had Fust

had a bath) and he said M'here are those amon you $ho $ill disbelie!e in me t$el!e times after

you had belie!ed in me.G e then as&ed MWho amon you $ill !olunteer for his aearance to betransformed into mine and be &illed in my lace. Whoe!er !olunteers for that he $ill be $ith

me (in @aradise).G Nne of the younest ones amon them !olunteered but Jesus as&ed him to sit

do$n. Jesus as&ed aain for a !olunteer and the same youn man !olunteered and Jesus as&edhim to sit do$n aain. 'hen the youn man !olunteered a third time and Jesus said M9ou $ill be

that manG and the resemblance of Jesus $as cast o!er that man $hile Jesus ascended to ea!en

from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Je$s came loo&in for Jesus they found that

youn man and crucified him. 4ome of JesusG follo$ers disbelie!ed in him t$el!e times afterthey had belie!ed in him. 'hey then di!ided into three rous. Nne rou the Jacobites said

M5llah remained $ith us as lon as e $illed and then ascended to ea!en.G 5nother rou the

estorians said M'he son of 5llah $as $ith us as lon as he $illed and 5llah too& him to
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.html


21/33

ea!en.G 5nother rou the uslims said M'he ser!ant and essener of 5llah remained $ith

us as lon as 5llah $illed and 5llah then too& him to im.G 'he t$o disbelie!in rous

cooerated aainst the uslim rou and they &illed them. E!er since that haened Islam $asthen !eiled until 5llah sent uhammad (@eace be uon him). 5n1asai 5l1Lubra 7+-8;)

Without a doubt this is an interstin story about ho$ Christianity ot started. "ut there is nohistorical e!idence for the rise of Christianity the $ay it is described here by 5l "aida$i and Ibn

Lathir. ather li&e I mentioned in the Ealry Christainity section11 there $ere multile churchesafter the Jerusalem Church $as destroyed (around 30 CE) and many early Christians had

different thouhts about $ho Jesus $as. 'here $ere different Early Christian osels eistles

$ritins etc. Nnly around 'he Council of icea (2/ CE) $ere stes ta&en to not only canoni:ethe e$ 'estament but to ma&e a set an orthodox set of beliefs (thus this is $here the 'rinity11

father son and holy sirit are one came from). (see Ehramn 200 ae ,7)

odern uslim scholars also suort the subsitution theory. 5bdullah 9usef 5li in his The

Meaning of the Holy Quran

Commentary suorts that someone other than Jesus $as ut on the cross that day. In hiscommentary on Quran-+,/3 he $rites+

6'he end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much in!ol!ed in mystery as his birth and indeed the

reater art of his ri!ate life excet the three main years of his ministry. It is not rofitable todiscuss the many doubts and conFectures amon the early Christian sects and amon uslim

theoloians. 'he Nrthodox Christian Churches ma&e it a cardinal oint of their doctrine that his

life $as ta&en on the Cross that he died and $as buried that on the third day he rose in the body$ith his $ound intact and $al&ed about and con!ersed and ate $ith his disciles and $as

after$ards ta&en u bodily to hea!en. 'his is necessary for the theoloical doctrine of blood

sacrifice and !icarious atonement for sins $hich is reFected by Islam. "ut some of the early

Christian sects did not belie!e that Christ $as &illed on the Cross. 'he "asilidans O"asilidesPbelie!ed that someone else $as substituted for him. 'he Docetae held that Christ ne!er had a real

hysical or natural body but only an aarent or hantom body and that his Crucifixion $as

only aarent not real. 'he arcionite *osel (about 5.D. ,8) denied that Jesus $as born andmerely said that he aeared in human form. 'he *osel of 4t. "arnabas suorted the theory of

substitution on the Cross. 'he #uranic teachin is that Christ $as not crucified nor &illed by the

Je$s not$ithstandin certain aarent circumstances $hich roduced that illusion in the mindsof some of his enemies Q that disutations doubts and conFectures on such matters are !ain Q and

that he $as ta&en u to *od (see next !erse and note).6 ('he holy #urGan text translation and

commentary by 5bdullah 9usuf 5li. ,8321,;/2 Birst ublished in ,;8 ,;3 ed. . 20

footnote 77 commentin on -+,/3)

'he @roblem here is that the #uran ne!er says that someone else $as ut on the cross instead of

Jesus. ather $hat the Quransays is that it only loo&ed li&e Jesus $as crucified but in realtity he

$asn%t. 'he #uranic !erse is as follo$s+

'hat they said (in boast) 6We &illed Christ Jesus the son of ary the essener of 5llah6Q1 butthey &illed him not nor crucified him but so it $as made to aear to them and those $ho differ


22/33

therein are full of doubts $ith no (certain) &no$lede but only conFecture to follo$ for of a

surety they &illed him not+1 (Quran -+,/3 5bduallah 9ousef 5li 'ranslation)

5bdullah 9ousef 5li%s translation is the most trusted translation of the #uran. Nther trustedtranslations of the #uran also dont say anythin about Jesus bein subsituted on the cross. 'he

follo$in information from an Islamic $ebsite oints this out. I Auote the site+

45@E4 NB '545'IN

While translatin the comlete !erse many translators remained as far as ossible loyal to

actual 5rabic $ords and refrained from ad!ocatin secific theories. ere most translators didnot omit any &ey $ord from translatin ho$e!er Auite a fe$ !entured beyond $hat 5llah said.

'hese fe$ translators !ery surretitiously interFected additional $ords inside the actual

translation suestin these $ere re!ealed text. ere are a fe$ reresentati!e $or&s+

9usuf 5li .... Nnly a li&enss of that $as sho$n to them. R

@ic&thall R. "ut it aeared so unto themQ R.

. . 4ha&ir R. "ut it aeared to them so (li&e Isa) R..

ilali and Lhan R. but the resemblance of %Isa (Jesus) $as ut o!er another man (and they&illed that man) R.

od$ell R. but they had only his li&eness R..

'. J. Ir!in R. e!en thouh it seemed so to them R.

4her 5li ... but he $as made to aear to them li&e one crucifiedQ ....

ashad Lhalifa R. they $ere made to thin& that they did R.

5rthur J. 5rberry R. Nnly a li&eness of that $as sho$n to them. R

ohammad 5li R. but he $as made to aear to them as such. R

5l1bu&hari R. "ut this matter $as made dubious to them. R.

ohammad 5sad ... but it only seemed to them (as if it had been so) ....

ohurul oAue ... but he $as made to resemble to them. ...

In the abo!e samle only 4ha&ir ilali S Lhan and od$ell suested that a different erson

be substituted. 4ha&ir laced %li&e Isa% $ithin arenthesis to suest $hat may ha!e haened.od$ell simly structured the sentence to suest the substitution theory. ilali S Lhan

o!ersteed all boundaries and clearly falsified by uttin interolated $ords inside the

translation. 4ha&ir suested a theory by lacin his oinion inside aranthesis and not in the

actual text. 4ha&ir and od$ell may be excused for inaccurate translations but ilali S Lhan


23/33

remain notoriously corrut and unardonable for absolutely $ron translation. o sane erson

can find the $ords %Isa% and %another man% in actual 5rabic text. ilali S Lhan tried to Fustify the

substitution theory by resortin to cheatin falsifyin the #uran interolatin totally imainary$ords and stayin miles a$ay from re!ealed text. (4ource)

'he substitution theory $as roounded to Fustify that Jesus $as not crucified. uslims do ha!ea oint $hen they say 5llah clearly says in the #uran that they didn%t &ill Jesus nor crucify him.

5nd I aree. o$e!er $hat does it mean $hen someone is crucified? It means that the erson$as killedby bein nailedto a cross. 'he Je$s and omans had thousands of eole crucified.

o$e!er some eole sur!i!ed. Jesus himself redicted that he $ould sur!i!e the crucifixion

(Matthew,2+-0) If a erson suri!i!ed the crucifixion then $al&ed a$ay111 he $asn%t &illed norcrucified. 5nd this is $hat haened to Jesus111 Jesus $asn%t &illed $hile he $as on the cross111

rather he sur!i!ied and then came bac& to his disciles. I document this here. 4o the s$oon

theory (that Jesus sur!i!ied the cross) !indicates the #uranic account of the Crucifixion. 'hesubsitution theory that somebody other than Jesus $as ut on the cross raises too many

roblems. Nne it imlies that 5llah cheated and decie!ed e!eryone t$o it imlies that an

innocent erson died for nothin and three it imlies in the $ords of an 5nti1Islamic $riterDa!id Wood 65llah created Christianity by 5ccident6. ather $hat haened is that Jesus $asut on the cross and sur!i!ed. e then by the o$er of 5llah ascended to hea!en. 'hat%s $hat the

*osels tell us11 and that%s the !ersion I suort. It $as robably @aul%s ($ho ne!er met the

historical Jesus) reachin of a sirtual resurrection of Jesus that the early Christians (robablythe second eneration of belie!ers) misunderstood and de!eloed the idea of a hysical

resurrection (althouh Jesus $as ne!er resurrected accordin to any of the osels). I thin& the

disciles belie!ed Jesus $as actually resisatated instead of resurrected and because of thero$in myth111 $hoe!er $rote the four osels and 5cts ($hom "iblical scholars belie!e $as

the same annoymous author of u&e) started to say that Jesus died and rose aain. o$e!er the

four osles clearly say that Jesus sur!i!ed. 5cts of the 5ostles isn%t really a historically reliable

document111 since the author of u&e $asn%t really a ood historian. istorian ichard Carrierdocuments this $ell here. 'he author of u&e and 5cts $as not an eye $itness to any of the

e!ents he $rites about (4eeLuke ,+,1-)

Is there evidnece for the subsitution theory?

5 common Auestion I et as&ed is there e!idence for the subsitution theory by uslims. 'heearly Chrsitian $ritins that I &no$ that suort someone else $as ut on the cross the day of the

crucifixion is The Apocalypse of eter (T) found in the a ammadi ibrary in ,;-/ $ritten

sometime around 00 CE) and The !econd Treatise of the "reat !eth(T) (also found in the a

ammadi ibrary and also $ritten around the rd century). 'heActs of John($ritten around

,/01200 CE) also says that Jesus crucifixion $as an illusion. 4o these early Christian boo&ssuort the #uran that Jesus $as &illed nor crucified and suort the subsitution theory. 'he

Early Christian rou the Docetists (,00 CE) belie!ed that Jesus crucifixion $as an illusion.(Ehramn 200 .,/) 5nother early Christian rou the "asildeans ( around the 2nd century)

belie!ed that 4imon Nf Cyene ( the erson $ho carried Jesus cross

inMatthew23+2Mark,/+2, andLuke2+27) $as instaed crucified instead of Jesus. What isinterestin about the "asildeans is that they claimed to ha!e been tauht by *laucias11 a secert

interreter of @eter11 the discile of Jesus. (Ehramn 200) "ut as an historian and uslim I
http://www.geocities.com/abusamad/substi.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/disproof.html#7.3http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peterhttp://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Treatise_of_the_Great_Sethhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Johnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Johnhttp://www.geocities.com/abusamad/substi.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.htmlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/disproof.html#7.3http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peterhttp://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Treatise_of_the_Great_Sethhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_John


24/33

belie!e that Jesus suri!i!ed his crucifixion and then ascended to 5llah. 'here%s a lot of ood

e!idence for this.

When I embar&ed on researchin this stuff fi!e years ao (this actually artly launched myinterest in comarti!e reliion ) I found it excruciatinly hard to find anythin suortin the

subsitution theory. 'here is also some e!idence from the *osel of atthe$ that suorts thesubsitution theory $hich I document here.

'he more I reserached I belie!e that Jesus sur!i!ed his ordeal thus comletin the sin of Jonah

then ascended to 5llah. Who &no$s maybe one day Christian scholars and archeoloists $illfind e!idence from a boo& actually $ritten by a discile that Jesus $asn%t really crucified and

instead someone else (ossibly 4imon of Cyene or antoher man named Jesus the olitical leader

of the Je$s). "ut till $e find hard e!idence for the subsitution theory11 I am stic&in $ith thes$oon theory that odern schoalrs on Islam such as aulana uhammad 5li and 4habir 5lly

belie!e. 5hmed Deedat ( a late uslim scholar on the "ible111 ay 5llah bless him) $rote

extensi!ely on the s$oon theory. o$e!er 5hmed Deedat also belie!ed that someone else $as

crucified instead of Jesus and Jesus ot a$ay. 5nd as al$ays 5llah &no$s bests. *ulam Debate+

#as Jesus Crucified$

"y Ehteshaam *ulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/jesusorjesusb.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/jesusorjesusb.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/about.html


25/33

'he Debate bet$een me and Da!id Wood on the toic Was Jesus Crucified $as held in Cal!ary

Church of omulus ichian on 5ril ,; 200;. I finally met both Da!id Wood and abeel

#ureshi. I ot alon $ith both of them and I consider both of them my friends esecially abeel#ureshi because I can understand $here he comes from. I feel li&e I &no$ and understand Da!id

and abeel better &no$ that I met them in erson. In the ast I $as told that both of them are

hate moners and constantly insult Islam are dishonest $hen sea&in about Islam $hile ha!indelusions of their o$n faith. "ut this isn%t true111 both of them are nice and easy to et alon

$ith esecially abeel. "ut I can understand eole $arnin me and others about Christian

5oloists dishonest tactics $hen they deal $ith other reliions. o$ I Fust don%t trust11or insome cases acti!ely distrust $hat Christian 5oloists ha!e to say about either Islam or

Christianity.

5s I redicted I didn%t $in the debate. Da!id Wood clearly beat me and for those of you $ho

actually sa$ the !ideo11 there is no disutin it.I fully ac&no$lede Woods s&ills as a debater arefar more olished than mine. o$e!er I feel that I modestly accomlished my oal and that $as

to et eole interested in Islam.

5ny$ays In my first re!ie$ I didn%t brin u too much due to finals $ee& last month ho$e!er

this time since I ha!e sare time I $ill try to co!er e!erythin in that $ent do$n durin thedebate..

I. The Historical Record

T Da!id Wood%s aruements are retty much the same as other debates on this toic. e aruesthat the alleed death of Jesus is the most certain fact in history. If that%s true than certainly many

historians in the ,st century oman World $ould%!e mentioned it. o$e!er the fact is that there

$ere 70 historians in the oman World yet only t$o historians in the entire ,st century mentionthe crucifixion of Jesus. 'hese $riters are Josehus Bla!ius and 'acitus. 5s I said before intheWas Jesus Crucified section $e can%t really trust these sources.

Josephus Flavius the Je$ish historian li!ed as the earliest non1Christian $ho mentions a Jesus.

5lthouh many scholars thin& that Josehus% short accounts of Jesus (in 5ntiAuities) came from

interolations eretrated by a later Church father (most li&ely Eusebius) Josehus% birth in 3C.E. $ell after the alleed crucifixion of Jesus uts him out of rane of an eye$itness account.

oreo!er he $rote 5ntiAuities in ; C.E. after the first osels ot $ritten< 'herefore e!en if

his accounts about Jesus came from his hand his information could only ser!e as hearsay.

Tacitusthe oman historian%s birth year at 7- C.E. uts him $ell after the alleed crucifixion ofJesus. e i!es a brief mention of a 6Christus6 in his 5nnals ("oo& => 4ec. --) $hich he $rote

around ,0; C.E. e i!es no source for his material. 5lthouh many ha!e disuted the

authenticity of 'acitus% mention of Jesus the !ery fact that his birth haened after the alleedcrucifixion of Jesus and $rote the 5nnals durin the formation of Christianity sho$s that his

$ritin can only ro!ide us $ith hearsay accounts.
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Crucifixion_.html


26/33

4o much for the 6historical6 record. 5s for modern 4cholars Auotin that Jesus must%!e died on

the cross that fatefal day in Jerusalem111 they are Fust reeatin $hat Christians are sayin about

the matter. Nne of the oints I brouht u durin the debate $as o$ do $e Lno$ for sure thatJesus died on the cross? We can%t tra!el bac& in time $ith a team of doctors to confirm it.

'herefore the ossibility of his sur!i!al remains.

T In the "einnin of his resentation r. Wood brins u the subsitution theory. 'he

subsitution theory $as told by uslims to Fustify $hat the Quransays. 'he !erse of the #uran inreards to Jesus%s crucifixion oes li&e this+

'hat they said (in boast) 6We &illed Christ Jesus the son of ary the essener of 5llah6Q1 but

they &illed him not nor crucified him but so it $as made to aear to them and those $ho differ

therein are full of doubts $ith no (certain) &no$lede but only conFecture to follo$ for of asurety they &illed him not+1 (Quran-+,/3 5bdullah 9ousef 5li 'ranslation11 r. 5li%s translation

is the most trusted Enlish translation of the Quranout there).

I document $hy uslims should sto usin the subsitution theory to !indicate the Quran%saccount of the crucifixionhere.'he orinal 5rabic $ords found in the #uran do not oint out to someone else bein crucified

instead of Jesus. ather the $ords translated from 5rabic are%t was made to appear to them& Bor

hundreds of years uslims ha!e come u $ith t$o theories to suort the #uran Nne that4omeone else $as nailed to the cross and Jesus ot a$ay and t$o Jesus $as nailed to the cross

ho$e!er he didn%t die on the cross he sur!i!ed. I arued in this debate that Jesus sur!i!ed the

crucifixion. I don%t see much e!idence for the subsitution theory (ho$e!er more on this later).

II.The Ressurection

T When @aul (the earliest'ew Testament $riter11 he $as $ritin around /0170 C.E.) $as tal&in

about the ressurection he $as tal&in about some sort of siritual ressurection and not a hysicalressurection. @aul says in 1 Corinthians+

"ut someone may as& 6o$ are the dead raised? With $hat &ind of body $ill they come?6 o$

foolish< What you so$ does not come to life unless it dies.When you so$ you do not lant the

body that $ill be but Fust a seed erhas of $heat or of somethin else."ut *od i!es it a bodyas he has determined and to each &ind of seed he i!es its o$n body. (1 Corinthians ,/+/18

e$ International >ersion)

What @aul meant is that *od sulies a ne$ body at the resurrection and that is not the body $ebury. Da!id Wood ho$e!er said in his first rebuttal that the earliest Christians did not belie!e ina non1bodily ressurection11 and this is correct. ather the earliest Christians belie!ed that $e et

a ne$ siritual body $hen $e are ressurected from the dead. 4ince @aul belie!ed Jesus $as

raised the same $ay $e $ould be $hen $e are ressurected (4ee 1 Corinthians,/+,1,720 S 1

Thessaloians-+,- etc.) he must also ha!e belie!ed that Jesus did not rise in the body that $asburied (6that $hich $as so$n6) but that *od a!e Jesus a ne$ body (6the body that $ill come to
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/wasjesussub.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/wasjesussub.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/wasjesussub.htmlhttp://www.answering-christian-claims.com/wasjesussub.html


27/33

be6). 5nd this ne$ 6ressurected6 body $as a sirtual body nota hysical body. We find e!idence

of this in the follo$in !erses+

6the body you so$ is notthe body that $ill rise6 (1 Corithians ,/+3) and 6a natural body isso$n (uta siritual body is raised6 (1 Corinthians ,/+--)

4o @aul robably belie!ed that Jesus $as resurrected by bein i!en a ne$ body not a hyiscal

body li&e $e ha!e but a siritual body li&e the anels ha!e. 'his ma&es sense $hen $e loo& at 1

Corinthians,/+/0 $here @aul says+ 6flesh and blood cannot inherit the &indom of *od6. It is

thus ob!ious that he does not belie!e that the resurrection in!ol!ed flesh and blood i.e a hysicalbody in our familiar sense but a different ethereal body li&e the same sort of body anels ha!e

(and accordin to the *osels Jesus said $e shall be li&e anels

cf.Mark,2+2/QMatthew22+0QLuke 20+-17).1 eteralso arues this Auite exlicitly+ 1eter+,8 declares that Jesus $as 6ut to death in flesh but made ali!e in sirit6.

Jesus also said that at the ressurection $e shall be li&e anels11 5neli:ed sirituali:ed

(Mark ,2+2/Matthew 22+0 andLuke 20+-17).

Nther scholars aree that @aul and the other early Christian $riters belie!ed in a siritual

ressurection11 and not a hysical ressurection+

6@aul.... in a context $here he $as discussin Jesus%s resurrection OdeclaredP that 6flesh and

blood cannot inherit the &indom of *od6 (, Cor. ,/+/0) . e belie!ed that the dead are raised

not in a hysical body but 6in lory6 (!erses -21-) and $ith their lo$ly bodies chaned to be

li&e Jesus%s 6lorious6 one (@hiliians +2,) .... @aul ne!er suests that Jesus tarried on earthafter his resurrection and ne!er laces any inter!al bet$een his risin and his bein at the riht

hand of *od (omans 8+-Q Colossians +,Q 'hessalonians ,+,0). e seems to ha!e assumed that

the risen Jesus ascended into hea!en immediately $ith a body of radianceQ and so he $illnaturally ha!e suosed that the subseAuent aearances he lists $ere made by a descent from

hea!en (Wells ,;;7 . /71/8).

5nd as the commentators in the)*ford !tudy +dition of The 'ew +nglish ,i(leut it+

'he Corinthians seem to ha!e bal&ed at the idea of bodily resurrection. @aul arees that the flesh

has no art in the &indom (!. /0) aruin that there are many &inds of bodies and thatChristians $ill recei!e bodies made not of flesh but of sirit (4andmel et al. ,;37 . 2,3).

4o essurection $as siritual11 and not hysical in any $ay. @aul ne!er mentions Jesus ha!in

been resurrected in the flesh he ne!er mentions any emty tombs no hyiscal aerances or

anythin li&e that. 4o its retty ob!ious that this $as sirtual. Da!id Wood brinsu-omans8+,, tryin to imly that this sho$s a hyiscal ressurection. "ut does it? ot really.

ichard Carrier ( 5 @h.D. in *reco oman istory) $as as&ed a Auestion about this and here $as

his resonse+


28/33

#+ In omans 8+,, @aul says *od 6$ill also i!e life to your mortal bodies6 Fust as he did to

Jesus and then he says in 8+2 that $e a$ait 6the redemtion of our body.6 Don%t these assaes

clearly indicate the same body that dies is the body that $ill be raised?

5+ ot necessarily. I already challene this interretation of both !erses in the boo& (. ,-;1/0).

I say a lot there that must be read. ere I $ill only note three of the facts that I discuss furtherthere+ the 6also6 in omans 8+,, does not rammatically correlate $ith the resurrection of Jesus

(bad translations ha!e falsely i!en that imression)Q @aul does not say 6our mortal bodies $illbe raised6 (in fact he ne!er connects our 6mortal bodies6 $ith resurrection at all not e!en in

8+2 $hich is a $hole t$el!e !erses a$ay from 8+,, and does not sea& of a 6mortal6 body)Q the

context of 8+,, aears to be about our current state of race not our future resurrection (as in 2Cor. -+,0) $hile @aul only ets to the resurrection in later !ersesQ and 8+2 actually says $e

exect 6the release of our body6 $ithout secifyin $hich body he means or in $hat $ay it $ill

be released. Close examination suests he more li&ely meant the release of our 6inner man6$hich is our ne$ siritual body $hich $e are already ro$in inside us. (4ource)

Unfournately I didn%t &no$ that r.Wood $ould be brinin u this !erse durin the debate (thisis one of the reasons $hy I lost11 I had no resonse to this). o$e!er it loo&s li&e-omans8+,, is

ointin to somethin siritual and not hysical.

III. The Crucifi!ion

Due to the hue amount of material reardin Jesus crucifixion11 I $ill only briefly co!er some

imortant facts surrroundin the crucifixion of Jesus. 'his summer I $ill try to finish u all thee!idence that sho$ the sur!i!al of Jesus1111 but riht no$ here is some material that thro$s

doubt on $hether Jesus died or not.

i&e I said in my first re!ie$ of this debate the $ord ressurected is not $ritten in any of the four

osels. ather the $ord is 6risen6 $hich could mean that Jesus rose u similar to ho$ eolerise from their beds.

In all of the *osels nobody sees Jesus 6rise6 from the dead. 'hey only obser!e a missin body

and later are !isited. o$e!er it should be noted that the earliest *osel the *osel of ar&

does not ha!e the resseurection narrati!e. It $as added some time late in the 2nd century or e!enlater. "efore that as far as $e can tellMarkended at !erse ,7+8. "ut that means his *osel

ended only $ith an emty tomb and a ronouncement by a mysterious youn man that Jesus

$ould be seen in *alilee11nothin is said of ho$ he $ould be seen. O,P

'he *osels ma&e it clear that Jesus most li&ely sur!i!ed his crucifixion. 'his is not imossibleas many eole in history ha!e sur!i!ed $orse. Jesus clearly said he $as oin to sur!i!e

$hate!er those Je$ish troublema&ers $ere lottin aanist him (Matthew,2+81-0). Death by

crucifixion tyically too& days yet Jesus $as only on the cross for maybe hours at the most.

'hs could exlain @ilates surrise that eole $ere sayin Jesus $as dead $ithin that shortamount of time (Mark,/+--). 5s 5hmed Deedat said 6@ontius @ilate &ne$ from exerience that

normally no man $ould die $ithin hours on the cross6. Nf course Da!id Wood brins u that
http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#mistranslationhttp://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#mistranslation


29/33

$e ha!e to exlain ho$ Jesus sur!i!ed the floin scourin and torture he $ent throuh. "ut

all !ictims of crucifixion $ent throuh the same torture before they $ere ut on a cross. 5ll

accounts as $e ha!e them sho$ Jesus ali!e after any torture he suffered so $e do not ha!e toaccount for his sur!i!in it11all $itnesses already claim that he did.When Jesus $as ta&en do$n

from the cross his les $ere not bro&en (John,;+) another sin that Jesus $as ali!e. Da!id

Wood brins u the omans doin a death blo$ to their !ictims and in this case the omans rana sear throuh Jesus heart (4eeJohn ,;+-). o$e!er it should be noted that

the searin story is robably false. 4e!eral church fathers (5mbrose 5uustin and Chrysostom

in articular) understood this searin assae symbolically not literally+ the blood reresentedthe eucharistQ the $ater batism. In any case 'he account of his bein seared is illoical and

late. It aears only in John the last of the osels to be $ritten (after ;0 5D). 'here soldiers

decide not to brea& his les because he is dead and then sear him to ma&e sure he is dead. 'his

is contradictory and inexlicable beha!ior.4o the searin story is most li&ely an in!ention. 'heother t$o men $ho $ere crucified besides Jesus $ere also ali!e $hen ta&en do$n from their

crosses so Jesus too must ha!e been ali!e $hen ta&en do$n from his cross (4eeMark,/+2

u&e 2+;1- and John ,;+2.)

ary adalene herself testifies that Jesus $as ali!e and not ressurected (Mark ,7+,,). 5fterJesus lea!es the tomb he is laid in Jesus is disuised as a ardener (John20+,/). 'his disusie is

only nesscary if Jesus $as ali!e and tryin to hide from his enemies.

'he *osel $riters clearly sho$ that Jesus had a hyiscal body and not a sirtual body. 'he

annoymous author of atthe$ says that Jesus $as hyiscal ha!in the $omen ro!el and rabhis feet as he sea&s (Matthew 28+;).

When Jesus comes to the uer room he says 4haloom (@eace be uon you). Jesus ro!es he is

not sirtually ressurected but hyiscally standin riht before them as&s the disciles to touch

him and eats a fish to ro!e it (Luke2-+71/). 'he *osel of u&e says this haened inJerusalem ho$e!er the *osels of ar& (the earliest osel $ritten) and atthe$ say this

haened in *alilee.

5fter the *osel of u&e ($ritten bet$een 8/1;0 C.E.) the *osel of John comes alon ($ritten

around ;01,,0 C.E.) 'he *osel of John has Jesus ro!e he is not only hyiscally solid but hehad his old body by sho$in his $ounds and breathin on eole and e!en obliin the

Doubtin 'homas by lettin him ut his finers into the !ery $ounds themsel!es. i&e Luke the

most randiose aearances to the Disciles haen in Jerusalem not *alilee as ar& (theearliest *osel $riter) oriinally claimed.5ll of this is ood e!idence that Jesus sur!i!ed (aain

more on this later)

I" The #nreliablity of the $ospels

5nother oint brouht u durin our debate $as $hether or not the *osels of atthe$ ar&u&e and John $ere reliable or not. 5re they biorahy? 5re they history? o not really. 5ll the

osels are omniscent11 not first erson11 narrators. one identifies himself by name and there is


30/33

no e!idence that any of the *osel $riters $ere eye1$itnesses to the e!ent that the describe. 5nd

of course the *osels $ere $ritten in *ree&11 $hile Jesus so&e 5ramaic. 5s for the authorshi

of the four osels $e don%t &no$ $ho $rote the *osels and the osels $ere $ritten based onunreliable oral traditions. 'he follo$in Auotes from scholars testify to this+

'he Nxford Comanion to the "ible (,;;) i!e the follo$in information on their authorshi+

T atthe$+ Written by an un&no$n Je$ish Christian of the second enerationQ robably a

resident of 5ntioch in 4yria.

T ar&+ otes confusion in the traditional identification of the author but offers no hyothesis. T u&e+ @ossibly $ritten by a resident of 5ntioch and an occasional comanion of the aostle

@aul.

T John+ Comosed and edited in staes by un&no$n follo$ers of the aostle John robablyresidents of Ehesus.

5s for the dates of the *osels+

Lee 9oun and Broelich (,;7/ . -32)+ ar& (30) atthe$ (8/1,00) u&e (8/1,00) John

(;01,,0)

"urton . ac& (,;;/) + atthe$ (late 80s) (. ,7,). u&e (around ,20) (. ,73) John (;0s)(,;;/ . ,37).

Editors of 'he e$ Enlish "ible (4andmel et al. ,;37)+ ar& (around 30)Q atthe$ (about

;0)Q u&e (about ;0)Q John (64hortly before the end of the Birst Century6).

5s for the *osels containin fictionalKunrelaible forms the follo$in scholars tesifty to this

fact+

This literature [the Gospels] was oral before it was written and began with the memories of

those who knew Jesus personally.'heir memories and teachins $ere assed on as oral

tradition for some forty years or so before achie!in $ritten form for the first time in a self1

conscious literary $or& so far as $e &no$ in the *osel of ar& $ithin a fe$ years of 30 5.D."ut oral tradition is by definition unstable notoriously oen to mythical leendary and fictional

embellishment. We &no$ that by the forties of the first century traditions already existed $hich

$e $ould no$ label orthodox and traditions comin to be reconi:ed as heretical11teachinsabout $hat Jesus said and meant that e!en then $ere bein called (thouh in a different

!ocabulary) 6fictional6 (elms ,;88 . ,2Q emhasis added).

Each of the four canonical *osels is reliious roclamation in the form of a larely fictional

narrati!e. Christians ha!e ne!er been reluctant to $rite fiction about Jesus and $e mustremember that our four canonical *osels are only the cream of a lare and !aried literature. We

still ossess in $hole or in art such $or&s as the *osel of 'homas the *osel of @eter the

*osel of @hili the 4ecret *osel of ar& the *osel of ary adalene and such

anonymous osels as those accordin to the ebre$s the Eytians the Ebionites and so on.


31/33

Jesus is the subFect of a lare11in fact still ro$in11body of literature often unorthodox or ure

fantasy cast in the form of fictional narrati!e and discourse (elms ,;88 . ,,1,2).

O5Pll the death scenes $ere constructed to sho$ Jesus dyin the model death and so 6infulfillment6 of 4criture.... O'Phe scenes ha!e a reliious and moral urose disuised as a

historical oneQ $e are $ith these scenes in the literary realm &no$n as fiction in $hichnarrati!es exist less to describe the ast than to affect the resent. In De #uincy%s hrase 6the

*osels are not so much literature of &no$lede as literature of o$er6 (elms ,;88 . ,/1,7).

4oon I $ill $rite an article on this and $hy I belie!e the *osels are not trust $orthy

information about the life of Jesus.

". %agan Influneces

5nother toic $hich $as brouht u durin the debate $as @aan influences on Christianity and

alleedly on Islam. "riefly touchin on Christianity there $ere at least three @re1Christian *ods

$ho $ere crucified and then ressurected. 'he first $as the the 'hracian od almoxis (alsocalled 4almoxis or *ebele%i:is) $ho is described in the mid1/th1century ".C.E. by erodotus

(-.;-1;7) and also mentioned in @lato%s Charmides (,/7d1,/8b) in the early1-th1century ".C.E.

5ccordin to the hostile account of *ree& informants almoxis buried himself ali!e tellin hisfollo$ers he $ould be resurrected in three years but he merely resided in a hidden d$ellin all

that time. 'he second $as Inanna (also &no$n as Ishtar) a 4umerian oddess $hose crucifixion

resurrection and escae from the under$orld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. ,/00 ".C.E.O2P. 4o the story of a *od dyin and risin is not uniAue its been done before. r.Wood tires tosay that Inanna $as hun on a hoo& therefore it is not crucifixion. o$e!er that doesn%t mean

anythin rather the oint is that story is !ery similar to the Jesus story told in Christianity.

5s for any alleed @aan influecnes on Islam Islam comletely reFects @aanism. 5nyone $ho

&no$s anythin about Islam $ill &no$ that the #uran and @rohet uhammad (eace be uonhim) both reFect idolary and aan ractices. 'he follo$in #uranic !erse and hadith sho$ Fust

that+

4ay+ 6Will ye $orshi besides 5llah somethin $hich hath no o$er either to harm or benefit

you? "ut 5llah1 e it is that heareth and &no$eth all thins.6 (Quran /+37)

arrated 5bdullah+ When the @rohet entered ecca on the day of the ConAuest there $ere 70

idols around the La%ba. 'he @rohet started stri&in them $ith a stic& he had in his hand and $as

sayin 6'ruth has come and Balsehood $ill neither start nor $ill it reaear. (,ukhari>olume

/ "oo& /; umber /8)


32/33

'he chare of uslims 6$orshiin6 the blac& stone is a common one and has already been

ans$ered by 4habir 5lly. 4habir says+

uslims do not $orshi the blac& stone. 'hey reard the stone as a created thin. 'he mostfundamental rincile of Islam is that nothin or no one is to be $orshied excet 5llah the

one true *od.

uslims $ho can afford the Fourney are reAuired once in their lifetime to !isit the ouse of

Worshi in a&&ah. 'his $as the first house built for the $orshi of the one true *od. It $as

constructed by 5braham and his son Ishmael eace be uon them. 'he blac& stone $as brouhtto them from hea!en by the anel *abriel to function as a corner stone. It $as thus affixed in one

corner.

"ecause uslims &iss that stone some obser!ers hastily conclude that uslims $orshi it. 5

&iss ho$e!er is not an act of $orshi unless it is accomanied by an intention to $orshi. If you&iss your child for instance that does not mean you $orshi your child.

4ome may find it strane that uslims should treat a stone $ith resect. "ut this is not Fust any

old stone. It is an item out of aradise.

'he act of fixin a stone to mar& a lace of $orshi is as old as history. In the "ible $e are toldthat Jacob on $hom be eace had fixed a stone at a lace $here he sa$ a !ision. e oured oil

on it and called it "ethel meanin %house of *od% (see *enesis 28+,8). e did this aain uon

*od%s instruction (see *enesis /+, ,- ,/). o one should understand from this that *od

instructed Jacob to $orshi the stone. (4habir 5lly Common #uestions @eole 5s& 5bout Islam. -7)

5s for 5braham and Ishmael oin to 5rabia and doin certian rites and such the toic is too bito co!er here in the future I $ill $rite an article about the e!idence that Ishmael and his mother

$ent to 5rabia but there is tons of e!idence that 5rabs and Je$s are related (T) (T) (T) (T).

C&'C(#)I&')

I tried to co!er e!erythin I could here. Nf course there is much more to co!er and in the future I

$ill try to add more on this but I thin& I co!ered e!erythin that needs to be co!ered. I Fust $antto say it $as a leasure &no$in both Da!id Wood and abeel #ueshi last month I certianly feel

I &no$ them better no$. We all $ent out for dinner after$ards11 $hich I thouht $as nice. Nne

erson $ouldn%t sto follo$in me around11 $hich I thouht $as odd and $hen $e $ere out all

$e discussed $as olemics aanist the #uran11 $hich I also thouht $as !ery odd ( I $anted todiscuss the ne$ Wol!erine mo!ie or olitics etc but $hate!er floats r. Wood and r.

#ureshi%s boat.) "ut in any case I consider both Da!id Wood and abeel #ureshi friends11 and

our debates about our faiths has only Fust beun. Its exicitin indeed t$o men of one faith and
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/11/jews-arabs-genetically-linkedhttp://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/response-to-sam-shamouns-ishmael-is-not-the-father-of-muhammad/http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/further-comments-on-ishmael-is-not-the-father-of-muhammad-revisited/http://www.dangoor.com/73page25.htmlhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/11/jews-arabs-genetically-linkedhttp://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/response-to-sam-shamouns-ishmael-is-not-the-father-of-muhammad/http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/further-comments-on-ishmael-is-not-the-father-of-muhammad-revisited/http://www.dangoor.com/73page25.html


33/33

me of another faith11 doin our best to ro!e $hy our reliions is the reliion. >ery exictin

indeed.

4o this $as a !ery nice exerience for me and althouh I didn%t $in the debate11 at least no$ Iam ac&no$leded as a uslim 5oloist and at least no$ I ot my name out there.

ater this year me and abeel $ill be debatin Who Was Jesus11 another imortant toic for both

uslims and Christians so stay tuned.

o$ I feel I ready for anythin they can thro$ at me.

'otes*

O,P (e$ International >ersion 5rchareloical 4tudy "ible . ,77,

O2P 4amuel oah Lramer 6'he Birst 'ale of esurrection6 istory "eins at 4umer+ 'hirty1ine Birsts in an%s ecorded istory rd ed. (,;8,)+ . ,/-173.

Bibliography*

5rchareoloical 4tudy "ible+ 5n illustrated $al& throuh "iblical history and culture e$International >ersion onder!an Cororation *rand aids ichian U45 200/.

elms . (,;88) *osel Bictions. "uffalo+ @rometheus "oo&s.

Lee .C. 9oun B.W. and Broelich L. (,;7/) Understandin the e$ 'estament 2nd ed.Enle$ood Cliffs J+ @rentice all.

ac& ".. (,;;) 'he ost *osel. 4an Brancisco+ arer.

VVVVV. (,;;/) Who Wrote the e$ 'estament? 4an Brancisco+ arer.

et:er ".. and Cooan .D. eds. (,;;) 'he Nxford Comanion to the "ible. Nxford+Nxford Uni!ersity @ress.

4andmel 4. et al. eds. (,;37) 'he e$ Enlish "ible. e$ 9or&+ Nxford Uni!ersity @ress.

Wells *.5. (,;;7) 'he Jesus eend. Chicao+ Nen Court.

VVVVV. (,;8;) Who Was Jesus? a 4alle I+ Nen Court.

impressions of the event

Documents