WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED? DEBATE – ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS DR JAMES WHITE

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Christianity, Debates, Islam, Quran

156 replies

  1. It’s very amazing that all passages of Psalms that christians quote are against christians’ belief regarding Jesus’ death.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Omg! Zakir you are a monster bro!!!!! Wow. JW got owned!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Like the first comment in this youtube comment section says:
    It’s pathetic that he always brings up the ‘argument’: you are using liberals to prove your point. But this does NOT refute the arguments of these ‘liberal’ scholars. Like Zakir said at 2:01:00: if you bring up liberals I will refute them but you haven’t refuted half of the arguments. Attacking the scholars don’t refute ANYTHING! I have NEVER seen JW lose so badly. NEVER!
    Was Jesus (pbuh) crucified? No but Jimmy just got crucified hard.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. This is the worst debate that I’ve ever seen White do. My review of the debate is here:

    http://allanruhl.com/james-white-vs-zakir-hussain-on-the-crucifixion/

    Like

    • Allam did you actually write that review?

      Like

    • Dr. White being unenthusiastic is his own fault. I do not understand your objection on Zakir Hussein’s use of the bible, but I do object his reference to Gnostic themes which Christians don’t subscribe to.

      As regards the alternatives to the crucifixion narrative, Muslim debaters present them as POSSIBLE or LIKELY explanations, some muslims prefer the substitution theory, while others prefer the swoon theory. The Muslim “modus operandi” in any Crucifixion debate is to show that it is indeed disputable, and offer likely alternatives for what could have happened based on biblical material, and Zakir Hussein successfully did that.

      What I believe were the strong points in brother Zakir’s presentation is his use of the Psalms to show that “according to the scripture”, the Messiah is not supposed to die, but to be saved from humiliation by his enemies.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “What I believe were the strong points in brother Zakir’s presentation is his use of the Psalms to show that “according to the scripture”, the Messiah is not supposed to die, but to be saved from humiliation by his enemies.”

      ibn awad

      We don’t get “ooh, look the narrator’s getting ripped apart… the Lord is my shepherd.”

      quote :

      There is not a single act of physical violence recorded in the psalm against the narrator. Insinuating violence into verse 16 is unprecedented and unjustified.

      look at the last comment made by drksspin

      quote :

      permalinkembedsaveparentgive gold
      [–]doktrspinLooking for Clues 1 point 7 months ago

      It is highly significant that no violence is recorded as happening to the narrator. He is isolated, alienated and threatened, but there are no signs of anything physically befalling him. Many attempts at resolving the problems we have understanding the verse come down to changing the text to have something violent happening to the narrator. (The narrator is working through his experience so as to see God’s involvement in his life and his required course. It is not strange that this psalm segues into Ps 23. It is not coincidental.)

      The Massoretic text manuscripts almost unanimously provide כארי, “like a lion”. The Nahal Hever fragment which contains 22:16 also features a number of anomalous YODs, ones that are longer than might be expected, such that there could be confusion with WAWs and such confusion between WAWs and YODs is well-known from the DSS.The Massoretic text combined with the knowledge of the WAW/YOD confusion, tells us to accept that the Nahal Haver fragment should be read כארי. It also explains how the LXX reads ωρυξαν (“dug”): the reader read the final letter as a WAW and the translator took what he heard as כרו.
      The different ancient translations from the Syriac to the Vulgate show us that there were difficulties with understanding the verse then. Whether we resolve the the problems understanding the verse or not, the best reading is still כארי with all its difficulties.

      And I think any attempted solution that tries to inject physical violence into the psalm is misguided.
      permalinkembedsavegive gold

      Like

    • Allen verse 39 of mark doesn’t say Jesus at all your review is as bad as James white’s debate.

      Like

    • It seems that James didn’t want to do the debate.

      Like

    • Paul Williams, yes I wrote it. No one else writes on my site. I offered Ibn Issam once a chance to do a rebuttal to a post I wrote but he didn’t take. So only me. It may sound odd because I wrote it out of haste and anger since James White missed many opportunities.

      Mustafa Ahmed – Verse 37 refers to Jesus(check the Greek) and 39 is in the context of that. Here is what 39 says:

      And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

      So the centurion stood facing the man on the cross and identifies him as the Son of God. How many times is Jesus called the Son of God in the NT? How many times is Simon of Cyrene called the Son of God in the NT? Jesus – extremely large amount. Simon of Cyrene – zero.

      Like

    • Adam is called the Son of God in Luke 3.

      Like

    • Where is Simon of Cyrene called the Son of God?

      Like

    • Ibn Awad, sorry I missed your comment and didn’t respond to you. I’m actually meaning to do a blog post on this topic. My next post will be about Zakir Hussain’s(and other Islamic apologists) use of Hebrews 5:7. After that it will be the Muslim “modus operandi” that I brought up. Thanks for reading my blog and taking an interest. It’s a very important topic.

      Like

    • @Allan Ruhl,

      I read your review but can you explain to me how Mark 15:39 refutes Zakir? The Greek does not mention Jesus by name, is that what you were contending?

      Like

    • Hi Ijaz,

      The Greek does not mention Jesus by name in verse 39 but does in verse 37. I only emphasize this because in the debate, Hussain emphasized that the name of Jesus was not in the Greek in the early verses(early 20’s of Ch 15). Obviously the narrative continues, and eventually culminates in verse 39 where the centurion faced the man on the cross(referred to as Jesus 2 verses earlier) and identified him as the Son of God.

      There is no scripture or tradition saying that Simon of Cyrene was ever known as the Son of God but the Gospel of Mark and the rest of the NT refer to Jesus as the Son of God many times, therefore it was obviously Jesus on the cross and clears up any ambiguous verses that Hussain quoted in his favor.

      Like

  5. I’m blessed to have the opportunity to be part of a team assisting brother Zakir Hussain in preparing this debate especially checking the Hebrew text and references.

    May Allah the Most High rewards brother Zakir and protects him always.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Brother Zakir did well. Alhamdulillah.

      He presented well researched material.

      I would like to appreciate the work he and your team did on this debate.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. James White accused bro Zakir Hussain of being inconsistency and saying that inconsistency is a sign of failed argument made me sleepless over the whole night can’t just get it off my head but let see if James White is being really fair on his inconsistency is a sign of failed argument
    He accused Zakir Hussain of being inconsistent for appealing to the docetics and the gnostics because they held to some beliefs muslims and Christians will not agree with those beliefs but before that he James White himself has quote Josephus and Tacitus to support his argument that Jesus was indeed crucified in his opening statement but we have to ask ourselves this question will muslims and Christians agree with all the beliefs that Josephus and Tacitus are affiliated to?
    But James white see no problem on his side quoting people like Josephus, Tacitus and Bart Ehrman yet James white have the audacity to tell Zakir Hussain that inconsistency is a sign of failed arguments very very sad that James white has fall to the prey of inconsistency is a sign of failed argument

    Liked by 2 people

  7. @ Allan Ruhl

    Looks like you were too hasty to me.

    As I understand White’s argument ref Simon of Cyrene is that the pronoun, the word “who” in English, that refers to him is found uniquely in that verse. So any other verses cannot refer to him.

    The word “who” would have to be repeated at the beginning of verse 22 to change the referent of the word “him” in verse 20.

    There would have to be something to cause the change of referent for the word “him”. But it is not there.

    That’s a better argument than yours.

    It was a Sunday afternoon stroll for White as I see it. It was too easy for him and you misinterpreted that as lack of enthusiasm.

    Maybe there is some anti-White bias on your part because you are a Catholic?

    No offence intended. Your arguments don’t add up as I see it.

    Like

    • Yes, James White’s argument is correct, but we need to remember the context. This is in a debate context and that argument probably made peoples eyes roll. If he read out loud verse 39 it would have reduced this argument to rubble and made it look completely ridiculous. If White was writing an academic paper, the Greek argument is good but not in this setting.

      Do I have an anti-White bias? When he’s arguing against Catholicism yes, but he was defending the Catholic position in this debate so I agree with him on it. I cheer for White in his debates against Muslims. He usually destroys Muslims in debate. He beat Hussain in their first debate. He beat Yusuf Ismail in the recent Unbelievable debate on this topic. He does really well against Muslims. This debate he lost for several reasons. His handling of Mark 15 is only one example.

      Like

  8. Here is the 1st part of my refutation of Zakir Hussain’s opening statement in his debate with James White: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSXP27KBWgI&t=246s
    I have to honestly say that the rebuttal will utterly humiliate and embarrass Hussain for shamelessly manhandling God’s Word, one that he will definitely not be fond of.

    In this 2nd part of my refutation of Zakir Hussain I turn Psalms 30 and 31 which he perverted against him to show how these very Psalms actually confirm the physical death and resurrection of Christ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE7HaOGwLho

    In this part of the rebuttal, I take Zakir Hussain’s claim that the Hebrew name of the Messiah, Yeshua/Yehoshua, is found in the Psalms and use that to prove that the Hebrew Bible prophesies that Jehovah will actually become Jesus Christ. I also refute his false claim regarding the Messiah supposedly having physical seed according to Isaiah 53:10. Truly humiliating for Hussain:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9uW7WMhXio

    Lord Jesus willing, I have a lot more to come. So enjoy!

    Like

  9. Robster are you Muslim?

    Like

  10. JW the preacher

    Like

  11. The KJV uses the Masoretic text as far as I know and there is no mention of a lion in psalm 22 v 16:

    16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

    Like

  12. Here is pt. 4 of my refutation of Zakir Hussain’s arguments that he raised in his debate with James White in their debate on the crucifixion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL0-IS7D47I&t=1s

    I address his appeal to the sign of Jonah and Jesus’ being entombed for three days and three nights, and his claim that Mark 15:21-25 shows that it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified on the cross.

    Here is the fifth part of my response to Zakir Hussain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MVBWZGlAd8

    I address his assertion that Jesus was flogged with his clothes on, his argument that Jesus wouldn’t drink the fruit of the vine until he does so again in God’s kingdom and how this supposedly contradicts John’s Gospel which states that Jesus drank from the fruit of the vine while on the cross. I then briefly refuted his claim that Matthew removed a reference to John the Baptist’s baptism being for repentance from sins.

    God willing, part 6 comes out today.

    Like

  13. Here is the 6th and final part of my refutation to Zakir Hussain’s arguments in his debate with James White: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMTVpwMoIsg
    I further elaborate on Hussain’s claim that Matthew omits the fact that John’s baptism was for forgiveness of sins, and discuss Q. 4:157, showing that this verse does not deny that Jesus was killed by crucifixion.

    Like

    • Sam you are reading things into the Quran sooo hard. There are authentic reports of the Prophet saying that Jesus wasn’t killed. So why even bother to try and fit it your perverted desire?

      Like

    • Assalamu Alaykum Believer

      Could you please post some of the Saheeh narrations from the Prophet (PBUH) saying that Jesus wasn’t killed? Everytime I have looked at the tafseer literature, all I found were narrations from mufassireen and nothing from the Prophet himself. So your input will be greatly appreciated.

      Like

    • Please cite those authentic narrations attributed to Muhammad which says Jesus wasn’t killed. I really want to see them. However sadly for you that still wouldn;t prove your case even if such narrations did exist. I will show you why once you post them for us to read.

      Like

  14. Proof that Psalm 22:16 best reading is “they pierced my hands and feet”

    https://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf

    Like

  15. Anthony Rogers refuted the arguments of Paul Williams and Abdullah Kunde against Psalm 22:16 as “like a lion”
    The best textual and manuscript evidence shows that “they pierced my hands and feet” is the best reading.

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/04/paul-williams-scholarship-pierced.html

    Like

  16. The Gnostics were not Christians; . . . the Gnostics believed Yahweh was an evil deity (a demiurge) . . . ”

    The Gnostics did not believe Jesus had a real physical body.

    “The Gnostics were as Christian as Jehovah’s Witnesses are Muslims.”

    Gnostic writings are 2nd and 3rd century sources, so Zakir Hossein was clearly wrong about all that.

    Like

  17. at the 1 hour, 23 mark, Dr. White made a great point about Muslims using Jewish arguments limiting prophesy, because in Qur’an 4:157, the Qur’an has the Jews calling Jesus “the Messiah”, but they would never have called Him that – the unbelieving Jews, the Pharisees, chief priests, Sadducees, elders, high priest, etc. – who tried Him and manipulated Pilate into ordering that Jesus be crucified.

    Like

    • which Jews is the Quran referring too? And maybe they were being ironic, sarcastic.

      Like

    • Take a looky at this mate:
      Mark 15:32: Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

      Like

    • It is obvious in Mark 15:32 that they are mocking Jesus; but the use of Al Masih المسیح in Surah 4:157 is not obvious mocking or sarcasm.

      Like

    • yes it is – typical jewish sarcasm

      Like

    • Surah 4:157 does not have Jewish sarcasm.

      Like

    • Are you kidding me? How is it obvious that 4:157 is not a use of mockery??? What makes you say that?
      There is NOTHING in the text from preventing it having a mocking meaning.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ok now you’re just trolling. Typical wishful thinking. ZERO evidence to back up what you are saying. There is nothing in mark 15:32 that shows more or less sarcasm then Q. 4:157. NOTHING.

      Like

    • There is a lot more verses and context of the mocking in the Gospels – see Mark 15:31 – “mocking” – see also Matthew 20:19 – the mocking in Jesus’ prophesy/prediction; Matthew 27:29; 31; 41; Mark 10:34 (prediction), Mark 15:20; 15:31, Luke 18:32, 22:63; 23:11; 23:36.

      Whereas in the Qur’an in Surah 4:157 is all alone, and if it was mocking, why did it include “son of Mary” and “the messenger of Allah” ? (which are terms that only the Qur’an uses to emphasize Al Masih is not the Son of God) ?

      I guess it could be mocking, but it does not seem that way to me, it seems like the Qur’an is defending the idea that Jesus the Messiah was not crucified or killed.

      It also seems to me, after looking at Irenaeus’ comments on Basilides again (Against Heresies, Book 1:24:3-7), that the Qur’an got it’s idea from that – the Gnostic heretics.

      Like

    • Ken you have a touching, if naive, approach to the gospels, as if they were completely historically reliable. They are not. They contain many errors, contradictions and much unhistorical material.

      This is widely accepted by historians (including many eminent Christians). The only people who resist these facts are fundamentalists like you.

      Like

    • They have much more historical detail and veracity than the Qur’an does. The Qur’an has almost no historical context (one has to get the sabab ol nuzul – reasons for the revelation from Hadith and other Sunna and Tafsir and Sira and Tarikh literature) and it has no deep “God-breathed” quality to it either.

      Like

    • what do you mean by “touching” ?
      effective?
      touching the soul?
      touching the emotions” ?

      Like

    • Why did it include “son of Mary”? Aaaam because he was! If They mock him by calling him the Messiah who got killed then the obvious result from that is that they would believe that he is a Messenger of God as well. In Jewish reasoning the Messiah is not devine. He is supposed to be a (military) leader send by God to bring a Utopia to the world and bring God’s rule to the Jewish people. He is therefor a Messenger of God as well. So for Jews a Messiah is also a Messenger of God as well. Therefor it’s nothing but logical to conclude that if you would mock him by calling him a Messiah who got killed then you also would mockingly think he is a Messenger of God who got killed.
      Btw when you say that Jesus was mocked in Mark 15:31 it doesn’t mention him getting mocked with him being called Messiah at the same time. It just say that he was mocked. Everyone knows that the Jews mock Jesus (even until this day, you don’t need scripture to tell you that) and Muhammad’s response was to Jews after all (Q.4:157).

      Like

    • “It (he Quran) has no deep “God-breathed” quality to it.” Really??
      Your NT is a mish mash of books written by unknown authors like the gospel writers who never claim to be inspired. Never claim that they are writing God’s word. Where as in the Quran it is Allah Himself who speaks.

      Like

    • they did know that they were preaching and writing the word of God.

      2 Tim. 3:16
      John 17:17 with 17:8 with 14:26; 15:16; 16:12-13
      Luke 5:1 (word of God) with Luke 1:1-4 – “eyewitnesses and servants of the word”, “the exact truth and certainty of the words you were taught.”

      1 Thessalonians 2:13
      1 Corinthians 2:10-13

      1 Corinthians 14:37 – the things I am writing are the Lord’s commandment.

      1 Timothy 5:17-18 – quoting both Torah and gospels as Scripture.

      2 Peter 3:16 – Peter views all of Paul’s letters as Scripture.

      Galatians 1:6-9 “What I say to you now” = what I am writing to you now.

      The Qur’an is one man’s claim, anyone can do that.

      The Bible is many different human authors who confirm each other in court testimony – 2 or 3 witnesses – we have at least 8 or 9 witnesses in the NT and many more for the OT. 40 authors who agree with each other – powerful testimony vs. your only one man’s claim.

      have you ever sat down and read the NT verse by verse all the way through?

      or are you just reading parts of it through Islamic polemics and attacks?

      Like

    • Again no refutation was given. Luke doesn’t say he is inspired. Luke 1:3 completely shuts down everything. It SEEMED good to me also (again he does NOT claim that what he is writing is inspired). It seemed to you Luke? That doesn’t sound convincing in the least.

      Like

    • “servants of the word” – Luke 1:2
      “that you may know the exact truth/certainty of the words you were taught” Luke 1:4

      Luke 5:1 – “word of God”

      So Luke knows he is writing down historical truth / certainty about the word and the word of God.

      The emphasis on fulfilling the OT Scripture in Luke 24:25-27; 32; 44-49 is clear for his books also, as in Acts also.

      Like

    • that you may know the exact truth/certainty.
      Luke 1:4

      Thy Word is truth – John 17:17

      They wrote down the truth.

      John 14:6 – I am the way, the truth, and the life . . .

      John 18:36- I came to testify to the truth

      It seemed good to me also to write down (the truth – from eyewitnesses and servants of the Word – Word of God and logos – Jesus – john 1:1)
      so that you may know the truth of what you were taught.”

      seems pretty clear to me that he knows he is writing “The Truth”.

      Like

    • The New Testament was canonized in the 4th century and does not claim to be inspired.

      Like

    • “canonization” is just the human process of recognition and discernment of the reality of what already existed by 96 AD, when the last book of the NT was written.

      In the 300s AD, it was already being discerned to be what it already was in the first century. The were individual scrolls by 96 AD, separated by geography, time; that it took a while during persecution in 2nd and 3rd centuries is not a surprise, once you understand all the factors. Especially since the Romans burned so many manuscripts in the Great Persecution of Diocletian and others -Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius (father of Constantine) from 303-311 AD.

      Most of the books of the NT were already mentioned as inspired Scripture by 140-180 AD (Muratorium Canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian). So jump to 4th Century is simplistic, when we have lots of 2nd and 3rd century evidence. Origen mentions all 27 books as inspired 100 years before Athanasius in 367 AD.

      Like

    • yep it was a long drawn out process taking centuries. The early fathers accepted lots of books as inspired that you reject. Messy and haphazard.

      Like

    • UNCONTROLLED ORAL TRADITIONS. UNCONTROLLED STORIES. NO POWER TO SQUASH LIES . NO POWER TO PREVENT HERESY, LEADS TO THE FOLLOWING

      Like

    • Denis Giron’s article refuted all that speculation and theory based on doubting God’s word and miracles and prophetic Scripture and that God speaks and uses prophets and apostles and causes them to write some books.

      Like

    • > These are only details, reply the apologists, it is the fact which
      > counts. Livy and Polybius relate the crossing of the Alps by Hannibal
      > in different ways, but they agree that he crossed them, and moreover
      > as we see him at a certain moment in Gaul and a little later in Italy
      > he really must have crossed them.

      > Guignebert responds:

      > Such reasoning is fatal. The elimination of details would leave us
      > confronted by a fundamental affirmation invalidated by facts.
      > Doubtless it is no sounder if it rests merely on contradictory
      > evidence and is surrounded by irreconcilable circumstances, but that
      > is just the question. Neither is it legitimate to compare the
      > discrepancies of Livy and Polybius in the passage about the crossing
      > of the Alps with those of the Evangelists about the Resurrection,
      > since the uncertainties and contradictions of the two secular
      > historians are attributable to the fact that they are writing long
      > after the event and that they are working on different written sources
      > which they have no longer any means of comparing with the event. (p.
      > 497, my emphasis)

      > That is the point. Mark, the first of the gospels, appears to say all
      > that he believes is to be said, and the subsequent evangelists
      > followed him, not faithfully, nor with the idea of elucidating his
      > account by a commentary which respected its integrity, but with that
      > of arranging — or disarranging — it, in order to render it more
      > convincing, of embellishing it or merely of altering it, in order to
      > produce an appearance of independent information, for after all none
      > of the discrepancies have any apparent meaning. All the departures
      > from the account of Mark . . . proceed from the imagination or
      > tendencious (sic) invention of the Gospel redactors.

      > That slippery slope

      > G supports this by showing how the even later non-canonical gospels
      > continued the tendency we see in the canonicals by adapting them in
      > order to improve the evidence or build in answers to sceptics.
      > Thus the Gospel of Hebrews has the resurrected Jesus give his shroud
      > to the high priest’s servant and then going off to visit his brother
      > James.

      > The Gospel of Peter have the worried priests send their own guards to
      > double the strength of the Roman troop, now led by an officer whose
      > name is known (Longinus), and even set seals upon the stone, all to no
      > effect, of course. The guards and Jews even go to Pilate and tell him
      > Jesus has been resurrected.

      > It is useless to linger over the additions invented by the other
      > apocryphal Gospels, from which nothing is to be gained. It is
      > important, however, to note that they do not invent their method, they
      > merely carry out ad absurdum the process set in motion by the
      > canonical sources. We are thus brought back to the fundamental
      > question of the historical value of Mark’s narrative, or, if the
      > Marcan additions be discounted, of the value of the tradition relative
      > to the discovery of the empty tomb. (p. 498)

      > Not only the empty tomb & resurrection stories
      > We find the same sorts of variations among a number of narratives that
      > precede the events of the empty tomb and resurrection. These variants
      > are not the consequence of different eyewitness traditions but
      > authorial manipulations of the original story for theological or
      > narrative purposes. Matthew, for example, likes to remove the cryptic
      > touches in Mark that point to an artificial or symbolic narrative
      > replacing them with “more realistic” or “natural” details.

      > The most notable variation across the gospels is their treatment of
      > John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus. Matthew, Luke and John are
      > each in their own way trying to explain away the embarrassment
      > generated by Mark’s unabashed narrative. But that is not the only
      > story with as much variation as the resurrections. Take the raising of
      > Jairus’s daughter. The symbolic name of Jairus in Mark and the
      > symbolic emphasis through the double use of “twelve years” — once for
      > the hemorrhaging woman and again for the age of the daughter — are
      > removed by Matthew. Similarly with Matthew’s and Luke’s changes to
      > Mark’s account of Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees over plucking corn
      > on the sabbath: Matthew makes additions in order to introduce an ethic
      > and christology closer to his heart as we see from other places in his
      > gospel. Mark assigns a mysterious symbolic meaning to Jesus’ walking
      > on water — he has Jesus say the act is understood by the two
      > miraculous feedings of crowds of thousands — but Matthew removes this
      > detail and re-writes the whole episode as a much more acceptable
      > “natural adventure”.

      Like

    • Why does Paul need to repeat the empty tomb history when he probably knows that it exists in Mark, Matthew, and Luke ?
      He quotes from Matthew and Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18

      Like

    • LOL

      Like

    • you have no rebuttal to that but to type “LOL”. your mouth is stopped. you are stupefied.

      Like

    • lol I was amazed at your stubborn biblical illiteracy.

      Like

    • I know the Biblical text pretty well.
      “Biblical illiteracy” is different than “Liberal scholar’s theories of the Bible”, etc.

      I may be less knowledgeable of liberal scholars (Ehrman, Crossan, Bultman, Tillic, Scheirmacher, Bauer) and lesser liberal scholars (Dunn, Tuckett, N. T. Wright) and Richard Bauckham ( a lot of his stuff is great, and he rebukes you on Mark 10 and shows Jesus is claiming Deity in an indirect way) than you; but I know enough about them to refute you; which I have done.

      Like

    • LOL yeh right.

      Like

    • it’s just faith in the God of the OT and NT and that He does not lie and in fact, cannot lie.

      “God who cannot lie” – Titus 1:2

      Like

    • When Mark has the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8), you jump to ask, “why he don’t have the bodily appearances like in Luke 24 and John 20-21 ?

      When Paul doesn’t mention empty tomb you go back to Mark and Matthew and Luke and John, which all have the empty tomb.

      When you attack john as latest and confirm Mark as historical, then we say you have to accept Mark 10:45 and 14:24, then you jump to some other theory and speculation that Luke deliberately leaves it out.

      There seems to be no way to satisfy you. You all seem to just make excuses.

      Like

    • “Ken Temple
      August 26, 2017 • 6:55 pm
      Why does Paul need to repeat the empty tomb history when he probably knows that it exists in Mark, Matthew, and Luke ?”

      the point is that this guy does not say that a TOMB was discovered. he REPEATS himself SILLY. he parrots himself silly, but he does not mention that ANYONE discovered the “empty tomb”

      bart ehrman says :

      Bart Ehrman (How Jesus Became God, pp. 141-2) explains:

      “It is important to realize that all the statements of the two sections of the creed are tightly parallel to one another in every respect — except one. The second section contains a name as part of the tangible proof for the statement that Jesus was raised: ‘He appeared to [literally: ‘he was seen by’] Cephas.’ The fourth statement of the first section does not name any authorizing party. There we are told simply that ‘he was buried’ — not that he was buried by anyone in particular. Given the effort that the author of this creed has taken to make every statement of the first section correspond to the parallel statement of the second section, and vice versa, this should give us pause. It would have been very easy indeed to make the parallel precise, simply by saying ‘he was buried by Joseph [of Arimathea].’ Why didn’t the author make this precise parallel? My hunch is that it is because he knew nothing about a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.”

      “He quotes from Matthew and Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18”

      what does this even mean?

      Ken Temple
      August 26, 2017 • 6:59 pm

      “When Mark has the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8), you jump to ask, “why he don’t have the bodily appearances like in Luke 24 and John 20-21 ?”

      IF YOU ONLY had marks version, where in the story is there even one indication that the women FLED TO THE disciples?

      the women have FEAR overtake them and they say NOTHING to ANYONE

      yes, if mark KNEW of the bodily appearances , why he does not narrate them?

      mark NARRATES stories in which NO one is an EYEWITNESS(when jesus is cast into the wilderness), why did he end his account with the women RUNNING away and not even mention what anyone saw?

      mark has 3 DIFFERENT versions AVAILABLE to him ACCORDING TO YOU, (luke, matthew and JOHN) , he says

      naah, i prefer the women RUNNING AWAY ?

      what we have in the earliest version of the story is that no woman relays the information . christians like you have to BASTARDIZE the text and pretend that mark knows that the SPOKE to peter, when the text clearly says

      “they said NOTHING TO anyone”

      compare to john where woman JUST TURNS AROUND and sees a gardener

      wouldn’t that be ANYONE?

      when mary runs to peter, wouldn’t that be “anyone” ?


      When Paul doesn’t mention empty tomb you go back to Mark and Matthew and Luke and John, which all have the empty tomb.”

      the EARLIEST source just says he was BURIED

      WHERE? unknown

      it could just have been a belief.

      jews used to get BURIED ALL the time and one would ASSUME a jewish burial. the earliest source does not tell us that their were ANY witnesses to the burial. only “he was buried”

      Like

    • No Ken! Luke does NOT say he is writing the inspired word of God. He wrights ABOUT the word of God. He gives his own opinions and so on. The four gospels are autobiographies. Not inspired books.

      Liked by 1 person

    • record of the historical truth / reality “in order that you may know the certainty/truth of what you were taught”
      and investigated “eyewitnesses and servants of the Word” shows he knew he was writing Truth about the Word of God / Word – the living Word Jesus and preaching the message of the Word of God.

      Like

    • big clams. Most historians find the gospels quite unreliable. Dont be naive Ken.

      Like

    • Yet they don’t question Mark 10:45 as early and historical about Jesus understanding of His mission and purpose of His coming – to be the substitionary ransom.

      Like

    • many/most do. But you would not know that.

      Like

    • who says Mark 10:45 is not original to Mark?

      Like

    • not original to Jesus.

      Like

    • also Matthew 20:28; Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28

      this is the new covenant in My blood for the forgiveness of sins

      Like

    • Ken are you telling me that when Luke says “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee…” that this is God’s word?This is just Luke’s opinion! How is this Godly in any way?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Luke says Jesus preached “God’s Word” – Luke 5:1
      and the apostles preached “God’s Word”
      Acts 4:31
      Acts 6:2
      Acts 13:5, 7, 44, 49
      Acts 15:35-36
      16:32
      17:13
      18:11
      19:10

      Luke says “the word of the Lord was spreading” and “the Word of God kept on spreading”
      Acts 6:7, 12:24; 19:20

      So Luke is writing down the historical details of Jesus’ life who taught the word of God and the apostles who taught the Word of God.

      “they” = others clearly knew they were writing the word of God.

      Galatians 1:6-9 – “so I say to you now” = so I am writing to you now”

      Jesus:
      O Father, (beginning in 17:1) . . .

      “the words You gave Me I have given to them, and they received them and understood that I came from You, and they believe that You sent me”
      John 17:8

      “Your Word is Truth” (John 17:17)

      The Holy Spirit will come and will bring to remembrance everything Jesus said, and lead the disciples into all the truth – John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13

      1 Thess. 2:13 – word of God

      1 Cor. 2:10-16

      2 Timothy 3:16 – “all Scripture is God-breathed”
      1 Timothy 5:18
      Quotes both Torah and Gospels as Scripture
      the quotes from the gospels are Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10

      Shows Luke is “God-breathed Scripture”

      Peter affirms all of Paul’s letters are Scripture – 2 Peter 3:16

      Like

    • “also Matthew 20:28; Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28

      this is the new covenant in My blood for the forgiveness of sins”

      nobody believed this .

      https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html

      plus in the beginning direct forgiveness was available

      12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

      no need of jesus’ blood here.

      jesus did not know that he was going to get caught off guard by judas

      mark invented that

      Liked by 1 person

    • forgive sins , no blood or power needed :

      McDowell puts forward a few Gospel passages (by quoting John Walvoord who in turn cites some Gospel passages) as evidence for Jesus being omnipotent:

      The evidence for the omnipotence of Christ is as decisive as proof for other attributes. Sometimes it takes the form of physical power, but more often it refers to authority over creation. Christ has the power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6), all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18), power over nature (Luke 8:25), power over his own life (John 10:18), power to give eternal life to others (John 17:2), power to heal physically, as witnessed by his many miracles, as well as power to cast out demons (Mark 1:29-34)… (McDowell quoting Walvoord, Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity, p.54)

      Keep in mind that the main question at issue in relation to MTA is not whether Jesus was in fact eternally omnipotent, nor is the issue whether Jesus’ disciples or the authors of the NT believed Jesus to be eternally omnipotent. The question at issue here is whether Jesus CLAIMED or IMPLIED that he was eternally omnipotent.
      ========================
      1. The “Power” to Forgive Sins

      Matthew 9:6 (NRSV)
      6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.”

      First of all, as this translation indicates, Jesus appears to be talking about AUTHORITY here, not about POWER.

      Second of all, it is easy to forgive someone’s sins. All you have to do is say “I forgive you” to the person who wronged you, and mean it. No special supernatural power is required to perform this mundane human action.

      Third, it is so easy to forgive that Jesus demanded that his followers forgive those who wrong them “seventy-seven times”:

      Matthew 18:21-22 (NRSV)
      21 Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?”
      22 Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

      The real trick, of course, is to forgive someone for wrongs they have committed against another person, when you (who are doing the forgiving) are not the person who was wronged. If a friend of mine steals money or something valuable from me, then I can forgive him or her for that selfish action. But if a friend of mine steals money or something valuable from somebody else, someone who I don’t even know, then how can I forgive my friend for the wrong against that other person?

      The obstacle here is not that I lack some magical “forgiveness power”; the problem is that I don’t have the RIGHT to forgive my friend for wronging somebody else. The problem is one of AUTHORITY, not POWER. Perhaps God, unlike mere mortals, can forgive my friend for wronging somebody else, but not because God has some supernatural “forgiveness power”. God can perform such forgiving only if it is MORALLY RIGHT for God to do this, only if God has the MORAL AUTHORITY to hand out that sort of forgiveness.

      Fourth, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus bestowed such forgiveness authority on his inner circle of disciples:

      John 20:22-23 (NRSV)
      22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
      23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

      If having the authority to forgive a person’s sins means that one is eternally omnipotent, then we would have to conclude that each one of the eleven remaining disciples from the inner-circle must also be eternally omnipotent. But that is absurd and is contrary to the doctrines of the Christian faith, so this argument proves too much. The claim that someone has the authority to forgive sins does NOT imply that this person is eternally omnipotent.
      ========================

      REPENT for the kingdom of god didn’t come:

      The Taqiyyah of Biblical Jesus
      Repent or not to repent? Standard Christian soteriology demands that Jesus be made a liar
      by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

      Christian dogma requires Christians to believe that the only way possible for God to forgive a human being of any and all transgressions is through vicarious atonement, i.e., the sacrifice or Jesus, or more specifically, the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, the second person of the triune godhead. As the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrews declares, ” For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.” (NLT, Hebrews 9:22) As a matter of fact, Christian apologists insist that without blood, if God “simply” forgives then there is tension between His attributes of Mercy and Just. The common refrain in their preaching is, “God would be unjust to simply turn a blind eye to sin and forgive without punishment.” And so, the horrible and shameful death of Christ on the accursed cross is God’s divine retribution, which then permits believers in it to earn God’s forgiveness. Never mind the unresolved existential moral conundrum of punishing the innocent to let the guilty go free and in fact, not only is the criminal offender freed, he is rewarded with everlasting bliss, paradise, but is God truly this vampiric being that needs blood, which is undeniably the apparent portrayal? If that is so then I’m afraid Christians have relegated their very saviour to the category of deceivers. If blood is absolutely necessary for divine forgiveness and without it as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness,” then Jesus spoke with tongue in cheek when he said:

      “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (NIV, Matthew 4:17)

      According to the chronological timeline, he uttered that instruction many, many moons before the crucifixion and so there was not a single drop blood available for God to be able to forgive a single soul on earth. The word for ‘repent’ in the verse comes from the Greek Μετανοεῖτε (metaneoite) which does mean to earnestly seek God’s forgiveness and pardon for one’s sins and transgressions. Thayer’s Lexicon defines the term in the following manner:

      “…used especially of those who, conscious of their sins and with manifest tokens of sorrow, are intent; on obtaining God’s pardon;”

      (Thayer, J. H. [2012]. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 405)

      The Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible renders the verse in a more explicit manner:

      “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
      ‘Penance’ requires that the person intently seeks someone’s pardon and in this case, it is God’s pardon that is sought. What pardon, exactly? If Jesus is God and the Divine Will has always determined that blood is the only key that allows him to forgive, then he would have been perfectly aware that there was zero pardon for any and all penitent persons up to the point of the crucifixion, which did not exist at the time of the instruction to repent that he gave. In short, Christianity deems Jesus as one that actually meant the following when he spoke of repentance:
      “Repent, but know that when you do that nobody will hear you and so it is actually futile and useless, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
      Facetious as the above is, Jesus didn’t actually say that. If he did, then the image wouldn’t be so damnable. But what Jesus actually said according to the Bible shows that he did mean to have people ask for repentance, making them believe they could be forgiven while knowing full well that there was no forgiveness until much later when he would climb the cross and die on it.

      Like

  18. Since everyone is posting responses to Zakir Hussain, allow me to share my post today about Zakir Hussain on Hebrews 5:7.

    Like

    • Allan,

      I think you have fundamentally misunderstood Zakir’s position.

      He did not claim that the author of Hebrews was affirming that Jesus was saved from crucifixion. Only that Heb5:7 was drawing on an earlier tradition based on the Psalms that said this.

      Let me give my two cents here. The people to whom the author was writing had come to believe that Christ had been saved because the One who had the power to save him from death answered his prayer. (It is obvious from the text that the prayer referenced here was at Gethsemene which was to be saved and not about anything else). The author of Hebrews is affirming the basis of their view i.e. the supplication to be saved and the fact that the Psalms show a saved Messiah whose prayers are answered. But instead of accepting this at face value he is going for a “higher interpretation”.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Hi Fawaz, I will respond to you on my blog where you left the same comment.

      Like

  19. May I request that you stop ‘gloating’ over ‘victories’ in debates Mr Allan. The apologetics setting in today’s world afterall has seen claim of victory by all sides after the events. Guess it’s about time to accept that the ultimate judge isn’t yourself.
    I have never seen James White beat a Muslim (save Yusuf Ismail ) in a debate before. Zakir Hussain, Shadid Lewis and a host of other brilliant speakers always make a mince out of him. It’s only my opinion anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. ehrman says :

    Things which did not happen :

    The Roman authorities were particularly keen to prevent any disturbances during the days leading up to Passover, arguably the most incendiary time of the entire calendar year. In the Gospel accounts, the Jewish crowds cry out that Jesus is the one who is about to bring the kingdom of David to his people. How can a Davidic kingdom be set up in Jerusalem? Only if the current rulers are thrown out. Who would be the leader of that Davidic kingdom? Obviously a Davidic king. The crowds in these Gospel accounts are acclaiming Jesus to be the coming messiah who will overthrow the Roman forces who are occupying the city and the land.

    Roman soldiers would have been stationed around the city. How can we believe that with this wild celebration of their future conqueror would not make them sit up, take notice, and act accordingly? If the throngs were really proclaiming Jesus as the coming messiah in his glorious and heralded entry into the city, how is it that he was not arrested on the spot and taken out of the way, precisely to prevent some kind of riot or mob uprising? I find it completely implausible. I think this must be a distorted memory.

    ehrman is admitting that jesus WAS NOT famous .

    SO THEN THE QUESTION IS

    QUOTE :

    Judea, even Galilee, even Jerusalem, were enormous places; how would anyone be able to recall exactly who preached or was crucified there in any decade span of time? How would you find any such people who knew how to read the Gospels…in Greek?

    QUOTE :

    Keller then claims “thousands of people” could say Jesus wasn’t crucified, unless he was. But how on earth could that be? Who would know who “wasn’t” crucified under Pontius Pilate? Hundreds if not thousands were. I doubt even Pilate himself could remember beyond a fraction of their names a decade later. And a whole lifetime later, how would you even know who to ask that question? The notion is simply absurd.

    ///////////

    quote :

    Keller also lies to his readers by claiming that, when Mark mentions Simon of Cyrene had two named sons, “Mark is saying, ‘Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, if you want to ask them’” (p. 101). No, Mark does not anywhere say that. He never says any information came from them. He never cites them as sources or witnesses. He never says anyone can go check with them, or even that they were still alive. In ancient texts, when someone had a source, and meant you to understand that they had a source, they said it was their source. There are no exceptions; anywhere in ancient literature. We can therefore be certain Mark did not mean Alexander and Rufus were his sources. Because if he did, he would have said so.

    quote :

    Paul never says anyone saw him crucified or buried, or ever even alive, but instead only says we know he was killed and buried from scripture…

    quote :

    Otherwise, Paul only mentions events of Jesus’s death. He says he was crucified, but not where or by whom (all statements of Paul that say more, are recognized as forgeries by mainstream scholars). He says he was buried, but not where or by whom; nor who saw that, or even that anyone saw it.

    Like

  21. ehrman says :

    Things which did not happen :

    The Roman authorities were particularly keen to prevent any disturbances during the days leading up to Passover, arguably the most incendiary time of the entire calendar year. In the Gospel accounts, the Jewish crowds cry out that Jesus is the one who is about to bring the kingdom of David to his people. How can a Davidic kingdom be set up in Jerusalem? Only if the current rulers are thrown out. Who would be the leader of that Davidic kingdom? Obviously a Davidic king. The crowds in these Gospel accounts are acclaiming Jesus to be the coming messiah who will overthrow the Roman forces who are occupying the city and the land.

    Roman soldiers would have been stationed around the city. How can we believe that with this wild celebration of their future conqueror would not make them sit up, take notice, and act accordingly? If the throngs were really proclaiming Jesus as the coming messiah in his glorious and heralded entry into the city, how is it that he was not arrested on the spot and taken out of the way, precisely to prevent some kind of riot or mob uprising? I find it completely implausible. I think this must be a distorted memory.

    ehrman is admitting that jesus WAS NOT famous .

    SO THEN THE QUESTION IS

    QUOTE :

    Judea, even Galilee, even Jerusalem, were enormous places; how would anyone be able to recall exactly who preached or was crucified there in any decade span of time? How would you find any such people who knew how to read the Gospels…in Greek?

    QUOTE :

    Keller then claims “thousands of people” could say Jesus wasn’t crucified, unless he was. But how on earth could that be? Who would know who “wasn’t” crucified under Pontius Pilate? Hundreds if not thousands were. I doubt even Pilate himself could remember beyond a fraction of their names a decade later. And a whole lifetime later, how would you even know who to ask that question? The notion is simply absurd.

    ///////////

    quote :

    Keller also lies to his readers by claiming that, when Mark mentions Simon of Cyrene had two named sons, “Mark is saying, ‘Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, if you want to ask them’” (p. 101). No, Mark does not anywhere say that. He never says any information came from them. He never cites them as sources or witnesses. He never says anyone can go check with them, or even that they were still alive. In ancient texts, when someone had a source, and meant you to understand that they had a source, they said it was their source. There are no exceptions; anywhere in ancient literature. We can therefore be certain Mark did not mean Alexander and Rufus were his sources. Because if he did, he would have said so.

    quote :

    Paul never says anyone saw him crucified or buried, or ever even alive, but instead only says we know he was killed and buried from scripture…

    quote :

    Otherwise, Paul only mentions events of Jesus’s death. He says he was crucified, but not where or by whom (all statements of Paul that say more, are recognized as forgeries by mainstream scholars). He says he was buried, but not where or by whom; nor who saw that, or even that anyone saw it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • quote :

      Although a few of Jesus’ closest followers were probably eyewitnesses to a large part of his ministry (such as the Apostles), in an enthusiastic religious movement driven by belief in Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return (I think these were sincerely held beliefs that were not the result of legendary growth), these followers may by themselves have been unable to contain the growth of legend and displacement of the historical core among those in the growing church who did not know Jesus when he was alive or were not eyewitnesses of the specific events being distorted. The ability of a few of Jesus’ closest followers to contain the growth of legend would have been further hampered if the legends were growing in several different locales, for in this case they would have had the nearly impossible task of being present everywhere, stamping out all of the unhistorical legends.

      quote :

      Tacitus was not a contemporary of a putative Jesus, would not have been alive at the time. He’s talking about something 2-3 generations ago. How would he have known one way or another if an obscure Galilean troublemaker had been executed decades before by Roman authorities in remote province far from Rome, if it weren’t for Christians telling him so? How many people did Pilate execute? Thousands?
      Are you actually telling me there would be reliable Roman sources Tacitus was working from? Which ones? What’s that about assumptions again?
      —I doubt he would have regarded Christian ‘tradition’ as reliable sources for his writings.—–
      Why not in this case? What else would he have? Saying some obscure Jew was executed in the boondocks over 80 YEARS BEFORE is a completely straightforward observation. As far as Tacitus is concerned, it’s not an extraordinary claim at all. He’s writing AFTER 100 AD, for crying out loud. He’s not close to the events at all, he’s writing after the destructive Jewish War, and there’s absolutely no reason to think he’s relying on anything other than what Christians were preaching about their own origins. If he actually thought Christians were wrong about it, how exactly would he check it?

      ///

      bart says ,

      Bart April 10, 2017
      My sense is that no one was generally watching what happened to crucified victims. You *could* say dozens saw it; or you could say thousands did! My hunch is that no one paid attention since it was a common event. (We have to force ourselves from assuming that since it was Jesus, after all, lots of people were interested)

      then why is not BART EHRMAN QUESTIONING THIS EVENT LIKE he does the triumphant entry?

      Liked by 1 person

    • quote :

      As Kevin K cleverly pointed out in another comment, why would they even crucify him hours before the Sabbath if they were just going to take him down? Why not lock him up for a few days so they could do it right- leave him hanging as a warning to would be seditionists.
      The behavior of the Romans in this story is a-historical and often absurd, my conclusion is that Mark made most or all of it up.

      quote :
      And on top of that, the very idea that the crucifixion would have taken place during the Passover festival is completely absurd, beyond all realm of realistic possibility. The fact that this hasn’t been more widely questioned and itself undermined the whole story is beyond me. The Jews didn’t execute people during Passover, period.

      the jews WANT no responsibility in acts

      quote :

      Interesting that the Jews would try and discredit the crucifixion,
      even though according to the new Testament they were involved in trying to
      get him crucified? How logical would that be? Considering further
      that the only alleged witnesses to this event were NONE from among
      the Jews. Really, why would the Jews have to deny it when there were his
      small handful of followers that saw him after this alleged event.
      Why would other theories become more popular Mike, unless there was
      already a cloud over the disappearance of Jesus? It is only
      illogical readings of history which try and justfy some crucifixion as the
      basis of a religion, though one cannot find from Jesus’ very beginning any
      speech whatsoever which deals with this ‘philosophy of Jesus being
      the blood sacrifice’.

      Like

    • thank you shabir ally for accepting the crucifixion as “historical fact”

      did you even bother to ask if jews really needed pagan battalion to arrest jesus ?

      quote :

      “Most of us have had the experience (more than once in my case), where
      you think you see someone famous, and it takes a lot of looking to
      establish whether it is or not. I remember watching an Edinburgh
      fringe play, and then seeing one of the cast members two weeks later
      in Birmingham. At least, I and the rest of my group think it probably
      was them. Even though we had plenty of time to look at them on both
      occasions, we’re still not sure. ”

      This common scenario is nothing like the portrayal of Jesus in
      Jerusalem in his final week. We’re not talking about Jesus being one
      of a cast in a temple play who may or may not have been recognized in
      a crowd a fortnight later. One can scarcely imagine a more contrasting
      scenario from the one we are discussing in the gospel narratives.
      We’re talking of crowds flocking to see and hear the person who had
      been welcomed as a coming king, who was a reputed miracle worker, who
      had cast out the money changers in the temple (in the gospels it is
      imagined as a small temple, comparable to a common pagan temple), who
      had cursed a fig tree, who was confounding the scribes and Pharisees
      with his daily contacts. We strive to catch a glimpse — would not the
      impression burn in your mind? I still remember the smile and wave of
      the queen of england driving by when I was just a kid. Jesus didn’t
      have to reintroduce himself each time he got up to speak in the
      temple.

      “Jesus operated outside Jerusalem almost entirely until the end, and
      the random Jerusalem based mob were just making sure they got the
      right person. ”

      Jesus was preaching in the temple daily. Where did the “random
      Jerusalem based mob” come from? John 18 speaks of an armed contingent
      of officers from the chief priests and Pharisees — presumably temple
      police who report back to the chief priests.

      Why not simply have their armed contingent take him any time he was
      leaving the temple and returning to the house in Bethany? Or simply
      take him any time they liked before or after Passover in Jerusalem
      itself? One gospel says that an armed contingent was sent to arrest
      him in the temple but they were simply too overwhelmed by his oratory
      to go through with the deed. Plausible?

      If the crowds were really so potentially violent and massive that they
      threatened to overwhelm any armed force from arresting him, then we
      have to explain why they lacked such conviction at his trial.
      The problem is the plot here, the narrative, simply does not logically
      hang together. The inconsistencies tell us that there is something
      else going on in the minds of the author/redactors.

      Philo’s mind-reading of a governor he hated is one way to interpret
      the passage.

      It is more valid, I’m sure, to interpret the passage through the
      narrative’s agenda. Pilate wasn’t doing the normal “handwash” custom
      of the Jews — that custom of handwashing before meals is an
      anachronism anyway. It was confined to a few Pharisees, and not common
      among all Jews till after 70 c.e. (Crossley, 2004). As per Funk and
      the Jesus Seminar, Matthew is looking back to Deut 21:1-9 where
      handwashing is required of one seeking to be free from blood guilt for
      murder. Also Psalm 26:6 has handwashing as a symbol of innocence.
      Matthew then structures the sequence carefully so that the crowd
      follow by taking the blood-guilt on themselves and their children.
      This is but one of Matthew’s anti-semitisms that are his specialty.

      You seem to be forgetting the gospels describe Jesus as being able to
      stop “anyone carrying their wares through the temple” single-handedly.
      That is imagining a much smaller temple than the historical one. Look
      at Mark 13 and there is nothing to overturn that impression. You seem
      to be reading Mark 13:1 in the light of modern knowledge and not in
      terms of the narrative within gospel texts themselves. The alternative
      is to think all the evangelists use the same misleading exaggeration
      when saying Jesus did this.


      Jerusalem was not business as usual at Passover time. We’re not
      talking about Christmas shopping busy, but vast, vast numbers of
      people from outside descending on the city. We also know that this was
      an occasion at which nationalistic fever reached an all time high,
      creating all sorts of massive security headaches for the authorities,
      who in any case had Passover arrangements to organise. ”

      Too busy to take time to even talk face to face with Jesus daily?
      Which they did — beginning with Mark 11:27. You are creating an
      imaginary scenario that simply defies the gospel narratives.

      Recall they had ample leisure time to debate with Jesus throughout
      this period.

      Nationalistic fever at its pitch at this time? I’ve always wondered
      the source for this common claim. The passover was an annual event and
      we can be reasonably confident after X number of years the authorities
      managed it fairly well. To think they couldn’t spare a few armed men
      to arrest Jesus any time they felt like it is fanciful. Simply follow
      him outside the city if they didn’t want to do it in the city. Or
      simply arrest him when he was speaking in the temple.

      The Feast of Tabernacles was also huge. John tells us the authorities
      had no trouble sending along a few “police” to arrest him on the spot.
      Or wait till after the weekend when the crowds would disperse. “Spies”
      – like Judas — for such tasks were a specialty in this time and part
      of the world. Only they had their own and didn’t need to trust one
      from the other side.


      Remember, too, that the Jerusalem folk and the Galilee “yokels” were
      living in quite different worlds (think London/Yorkshire moors, but
      without the communication and in a different regional structure). ”

      Galilee was not a stereotypical yokel place. It was cosmopolitan with
      major city centres and philosophical schools. (Collins, Sterling (via:
      amazon.co.uk), 2001) There were differences, but not so much of the
      kind you suggest here.

      Bethany is outside Jerusalem. The miracle he performed there outraged
      the Jerusalem authorities enough to want to kill its beneficiary,
      Lazarus. Not someone else’s problem at all.

      When he arrived in Jerusalem crowds lined the highway to catch a
      glimpse of him as their king and saviour. Think they’d forget the face
      they saw? Compare notes? Talk about him afterwards? Cement the
      experience?

      Next was not the temple cleansing, but the Pharisees being outraged at
      this reception Jesus got (John, Matthew).

      The authorities DID catch up with Jesus many times. It was to have a
      debate with him about his authority, another time to listen to a
      parable or two, then again to discuss taxation, and again to discuss
      the resurrection, then to discuss the commandments, and the prophecies
      about the Son of David.

      Lots of catch-up time happened.

      Like

    • to read

      quote :

      In Part 8 of this series, I make a final point about how Luke Johnson’s skepticism about the details in the Gospels undermines the view that it is highly probable that Jesus died on the same day he was crucified.

      These are all details concerning the alleged crucifixion of Jesus:

      How many hours was Jesus on the cross?

      How was Jesus attached to the cross?

      If nails were used, were they used only for his hands or only for his feet or for both hands and feet?

      Was Jesus stabbed with a spear while he was on the cross?

      If so, where on his body did the spear penetrate?

      If Jesus was stabbed with a spear, how deep and how wide was the spear wound?

      If Jesus was stabbed with a spear, were any vital organs seriously damaged by this?

      None of these details are known. We can only formulate educated guesses in order to answer these questions. But the probability that Jesus would have died on the cross on the same day he was crucified depends to a large degree on the answers to these questions about the details of Jesus’ alleged crucifixion.

      As Luke Johnson repeatedly and correctly points out, when it comes to such details, we cannot rely upon the Gospels to provide solid historical evidence to establish such details:

      A careful examination of all the evidence offered by outsider and insider sources justifies making certain statements about Jesus that have an impressively high level of probability.

      Such statements do not concern details, specific incidents, or the sequence of events.

      (The Real Jesus, p.111-112)

      Johnson is skeptical when it comes to the DETAILS provided by the Gospels, but we must acknowledge that “the devil is in the details”.

      Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/11/20/response-to-william-lane-craig-index/#ZHkRjr7ZiC84vfRS.99

      Like

  22. Zakir Hussein and you guys are trying to tell us that Hebrews 5:7 means that Jesus did not die on the cross?
    Obviously you guys don’t know how to read a book and see the verse in context.
    Amazing to me !!
    Dr. White is right – the way that Jesus was saved was by the resurrection from the dead. He died, and then on the 3rd day rose from the dead in power. it says God the Father is “able” to save Him from death,it does not say that God the Father took Him to Himself or raised Him to heaven before the cross or before death; and remember Jesus said, “But not My will, but Thy will be done” (Luke 22:42) all the other verses below speak of Jesus willingly offering Himself as a offering, a sacrifice, which points to Isaiah 53:10 – “if He would offer Himself as a guilt offering”, etc.

    Read these verses through and see that there is no way to interpret Hebrews 5:7 as somehow that Jesus was taken away before the cross and not crucified and did not die.

    He suffered, was crucified, died, buried, and rose from the dead.

    Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,
    21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

    Hebrews 13:20-21

    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

    Hebrews 1:3

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    Hebrews 2:9

    For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

    Hebrews 2:10

    For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source . . .
    Hebrews 2:11 (see Hebrews 10:10-14 – we are sanctified by the sacrifice / offering/ death of Jesus)

    Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

    Hebrews 2:14

    In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.
    8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
    9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

    Hebrews 5:7-9

    25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
    26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
    27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up Himself.

    Hebrews 7:25-27

    11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
    12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
    13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
    14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

    Hebrews 9:11-14

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
    25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
    26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
    28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    Hebrews 9:24-28

    10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
    11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
    12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
    13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
    14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

    Hebrews 10:10-14

    Liked by 1 person

  23. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

    Hebrews 1:3

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    See the “purification by blood” is about His death on the cross.

    Like

    • who wrote Hebrews? Why is this book in the canon?

      Like

    • God the Holy Spirit wrote the book, through a human author with apostolic authority. As Dr. White pointed out, it could have been the apostle Paul’s sermon/ preaching that was translated into higher Greek by Luke; or, as I think, it was Barnabas (Acts 4:36 – he was a Levite (all the details of the whole book about the tabernacle/temple/priests/ book of Leviticus, etc. point to him); “son of Encouragement” – see Hebrews 13:22 – “word of exhortation/ encouragement”. Barnabas is called an apostle in Acts 14:4 and 14:14.
      Because it is “God-breathed” ( 2 Timothy 3:16)

      Like

    • No one knows who wrote it.

      Like

    • Luke translating Paul’s sermon
      or
      Barnabas
      are excellent probabilities.

      But the early church discerned the God-breathed quality / content / doctrine of the book.

      My sheep hear My voice . . .
      John 10:27

      Like

    • “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

      this is a ritual. when did rituals clean the heart? you see how much of a pauline hypocrite you are? your hypocrosy implies you dont care about sinning as long as you can lie for your filthy religion. you don’t really care about rituals. as long as you can swim in blood , you don’t care.

      Like

    • God-breathed rituals, when accompanied by true heart repentance and faith, are good and were of course, God’s word in the OT.

      But since the Qur’an is not the word of God, and you have no doctrine of getting the heart changed or being born again and you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit of God that changes a person on the inside, your rituals are dry and dead. Your rituals are not “God-breathed”. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are good rituals because they are “God-breathed” / inspired. But they can be performed in a dry and duty-only way, without repentance and faith (which is what God rebukes Israel for, in Isaiah 1:11-15 & Amos 5:21-22, and a few other places, that Muslims like to quote (like Psalm 40:6; 51:16.)

      So, I am not a hypocrite on that point, because your rituals are dry and dead, and the proof is that you have no doctrine of a heart of sin being able to be changed, being born again, or the Holy Spirit.

      You have repentance and faith, true; but it does no good without the spiritual power of the Holy Spirit and God’s power of the atonement of Christ and resurrection that faith in Al Masih and His redemptive work on the cross and ressureciton and ascension that Hebrews talks about – you have no power of atonement, forgiveness, new life, or intercession or mediation. Jesus made atonement for sins and rose from the dead and proved all that the NT says He is, He is. and He changes hearts by true repentance and true faith (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-10; 2 Cor. 5:17).

      Rituals are only good if they are from God (the OT and NT, not the Qur’an, a human book 600 years later with no power and no inspiration, full of legends and fables and falsehoods), and performed with repentance and faith, and if the Holy Spirit changes the heart.

      “I will take away your heart of stone and give you a new heart, a heart of soft flesh, and cause you to walk in My commandments” I will pour out My Spirit upon you.” Ezekiel 36:26-27; Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:3; Joel 2:28; John 7:37-39)

      We care about sinning, we have the true fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10; 8:13; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 2:12-13; Psalm 19).

      Like

    • “God-breathed rituals, when accompanied by true heart repentance and faith, are good and were of course, God’s word in the OT”

      how did shedding blood and swimming in blood and imagining an EXTERNAL ritual of blood bath cleanse the heart? “god breathed rituals” lol
      god told you to remember external ritual which does not reach the heart.

      how is killing a goat for sins reach the heart? you grab a knife and you slice its throat. okay, so what?
      how is sending an animal into the wilderness reach the heart?

      “true repentance…”

      why does a EXTERNAL ritual of blood shedding is requirement for “true repentance” ?

      people burn animals to death
      people kill children

      you need to beam up your guilt by doing external blood letting rituals?

      people can’t achieve “true repentance” without blood letting?

      tell me how does BLOOD letting reach the heart.

      you slice an ANIMAL and you see blood pour out. you see an animal starve to death in the wilderness.

      how does any of this connect with your “spiritual heart” ?

      Like

  24. “Not My will, but Thy will be done” Luke 22:42 / Matthew 26:39 / Mark 14:36

    Jesus’ prayer in the garden was answered for strength and grace to go through the suffering and death of taking on the sins of the world and the wrath / justice of God against sin.

    This is also is consistent with Hebrews 10:1-9

    “a body You have prepared for Me” (verse 5)

    “behold, I have come to do Thy will” Hebrews 10:7, 9

    then He said, behold, I have come to do Thy will, He takes away the first
    (the sacrificial system of the blood of bulls and goats – see verses 3-4)
    in order to establish the second.
    (the new covenant in His blood,which Jesus first taught at the last supper in the gospels)

    Hebrews 10:9

    So, Hebrews 5:7 – He was heard because of His piety – means He was strengthened to go through the cross and death, because of His piety and submission to the will of God – “Not My will, but Thy will be done”.

    Muslims should be able to see the piety in Jesus as He submitted and surrendered to the will of the Father.

    “The LORD was pleased/( it was His will) to crush Him, if He would render Himself a guilt offering . . . ” Isaiah 53:10

    The next verse, Hebrews 5:8, speaks of His sufferings – he learned obedience through suffering – and this points back to Hebrews 2:9, “because of the suffering of death”.

    Also,
    Dr. White made a great point that Jonah cried out from Sheol. Sheol is the grave / death.
    Jonah 2:2

    so Psalm 30:3 speaks of “O Lord, You have brought up my soul from Sheol, kept me alive, etc. also includes death and resurrection, as the whole NT interpreted Psalm 16 as just that – death in the grave and resurrection on the third day. Just study how Acts 2:25-28 and Acts 13:35 interpret Psalm 16:10.

    The whale (or big fish) vomiting Jonah up and he came alive again – the whole book and miracle is a sign of the future Messiah who would die on the cross and be resurrected from the dead.

    Matthew 12:38-40 – the prophet Jonah was an example of death and resurrection and the sign / miracle pointed to the future Messiah for all the nations.

    Like

    • “Jesus’ prayer in the garden was answered for strength and grace to go through the suffering and death of taking on the sins of the world and the wrath / justice of God against sin.”

      “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

      He said, “Abba,[a] Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.”

      jesus should have offered a burnt offering

      he had a sinful THOUGHT when he said “all things are POSSIBLE…”

      meaning from that possibility, he does not want to drink from the cup. jesus sinned. in thought and then uttered an action by speaking.

      jesus needed a BURNT offering (thought ) and a SIN offering (action)


      Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial;[b] the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

      the human nature of jesus was clearly WEAK. this must be referring to him AS WELL because he is the one BEGGING his god to remove the cup.

      “And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.”

      prayer for deliverance again and again.

      quote :

      “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.”

      result : prayer went unanswered.

      result :

      “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

      conclusion : the flesh is weak.

      Like

  25. Hebrews is in the canon ( κανων = “criterion”, “standard” ) because the contents are doctrinally consistent with the rest of the NT and the contents / doctrine / substance / principles have the marks of inspiration / God-breathed quality to them.

    Read the content of the verses about death, suffering, offering, sacrifice, blood, etc. and see that Hebrews 5:7 cannot mean that the Father took Jesus away before the cross.

    You are obfuscating by diverting the question from the content of Hebrews to who the human author was and why it is in the canon.

    Like

  26. “Jesus’ prayer in the garden was answered for strength and grace to go through the suffering and death of taking on the sins of the world and the wrath / justice of God against sin.”

    “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.” 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

    He said, “Abba,[a] Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.”

    jesus should have offered a burnt offering

    he had a sinful THOUGHT when he said “all things are POSSIBLE…”

    meaning from that possibility, he does not want to drink from the cup. jesus sinned. in thought and then uttered an action by speaking.

    jesus needed a BURNT offering (thought ) and a SIN offering (action)


    Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial;[b] the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

    the human nature of jesus was clearly WEAK. this must be referring to him AS WELL because he is the one BEGGING his god to remove the cup.

    “And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.”

    prayer for deliverance again and again.

    quote :

    “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.”

    result : prayer went unanswered.

    result :

    “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

    conclusion : the flesh is weak.

    Like

  27. “God-breathed rituals, when accompanied by true heart repentance and faith, are good and were of course, God’s word in the OT”

    how did shedding blood and swimming in blood and imagining an EXTERNAL ritual of blood bath cleanse the heart? “god breathed rituals” lol
    god told you to remember external ritual which does not reach the heart.

    how is killing a goat for sins reach the heart? you grab a knife and you slice its throat. okay, so what?
    how is sending an animal into the wilderness reach the heart?

    “true repentance…”

    why does a EXTERNAL ritual of blood shedding is requirement for “true repentance” ?

    people burn animals to death
    people kill children

    you need to beam up your guilt by doing external blood letting rituals?

    people can’t achieve “true repentance” without blood letting?

    tell me how does BLOOD letting reach the heart.

    you slice an ANIMAL and you see blood pour out. you see an animal starve to death in the wilderness.

    how does any of this connect with your “spiritual heart” ?

    Like

    • Since it (the law in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) was God’s word for that time, it was powerful, when God gave spiritual power when the ritual performer did it in repentance and faith.

      6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties,
      7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
      8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing 9 (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper,
      10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
      11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
      12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
      13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
      14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

      15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

      Hebrews 9:6-15

      Like

  28. Why do you think Christianity is True? by John Piper

    Like

  29. if the rituals of the ot were “god breath” then your new testament is a lie and so is the book of hebrews
    the “god breathed rituals” in the ot, according to your own testimony did reach the heart if accompanied with “true repentance” which implies jesus, his blood, his murder, his crucifix is not required.

    why would yhwh create COMPLEX animal ritualistic system only to have it abrogated by the easy nailing of a god by pagans?

    Like

  30. “Since it (the law in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) was God’s word for that time, it was powerful, when God gave spiritual power when the ritual performer did it in repentance and faith.”

    so no blood letting of human was required. animal offering was powerful enough to give “spiritual power”

    Like

    • What part of Yahya’s statement do you not understand?

      “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

      Also, Hebrews chapters 8, 9, and 10 answer those questions.

      The NT (the Injeel) fulfills and completes the OT.

      Like

    • 1) Doesn’t matter who wrote it. I was merely addressing you because you appropriated it for your blog. Nor am I blaming you or calling anyone any names. 2) If the original piece was based “on one Gospel,” Matt., then where in Matt. does it say, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” You and I both know that is only found in the fourth Gospel, so the person is mixing up Gospel tales. 3) The differences between John and the Synoptics are more than minor.

      In Mark, the earliest Gospel, the implication is that Jesus alone saw the heavens open, spirit descend, and heard the voice from heaven, just as Jesus alone was aware of that same spirit leading him immediately after his baptism into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. For GMark states, “he (jesus) saw the heavens open…” And the voice from heaven said, “YOU are my beloved son, with yOU I am well pleased,” as if jesus alone is being addressed and hearing the message. Mark also has no conversations between the Baptist and Jesus. So in Mark the Baptist could simply be an apocalyptic preacher who did not see or hear anything unusual happening at Jesus’s baptism which makes perfect sense later in Mark when the Baptist expresses his doubts. Now compare how the Baptist’s role expands in latter Gospels along with the Baptist’s recognition of who Jesus was.

      In the next Gospel, chronologically speaking, Matthew, we read that a conversation takes place in which the Baptist is depicted as not wanting to baptize Jesus but be baptized by him (as I said, this is not found in Mark). Furthermore, some manuscripts of Matt. drop the “to him” at the end of the phrase, “and the heavens were opened,” thus implying that Jesus was no longer the only one who saw the heavens open. Nor is the voice from heaven addressed to Jesus alone as in Mark’s version that went, “YOU are my beloved son, with YOU I am well pleased,” but instead Matt. has the voice address everyone, not just Jesus alone, so Matt. writes, “THIS is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.” (I can also multiply instances of GMatt. making GMark’s story grander, but let’s stick with this one instance, the baptismal scene.)

      While GLuke goes even further than Matthew, opening his Gospel with two miraculous birth tales, not just one as in Matthew (of course Mark lacks all miraculous birth tales and begins with Jesus being specially chosen at his baptism, the moment the spirit descends on him).

      Luke adds a tale not just about Jesus being born miraculously but adds a second tale, about the Baptist being born via miraculous preplanned events. And Luke also leaves out that the heavens opened “to him,” and implies the crowd saw and heard everything, again, contra Mark and more like Matt.

      By the time the fourth Gospel is composed, the Baptist himself is depicted testifying in the FIRST person, “I (John the Baptist) saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him (Jesus)… But He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the holy spirit’ and I (John the Baptist) have seen and borne witness that this is the son of God. The next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, ‘Behold the lamb of god.'”

      It doesn’t get any grander than a first person testimony from the Baptist himself as to what he says he saw with his own eyes, and quite a distance from the original far less impressive tale in the earliest Gospel, Mark.

      Thus concludes my basic case, namely that the doubts of the Baptist seem fully valid in the context of what the earliest Gospel said about Jesus’s baptism in which only Jesus saw the heavens open and the voice addressing him alone. But GMark’s tale of the Baptist’s doubts makes less sense in the latter two Synoptics since they have everyone see a miracle at Jesus’s baptism, not just Jesus, and GLuke even has the Baptist abe born miraculously and leap in the womb for Jesus! and make the Baptist a relative of Jesus. By the time the fourth Gospel was written the Markan tale of the Baptists’s doubts is dropped completely.

      To back up what I wrote about the fourth gospel not containing only minor differences from the Synoptics, along with examples of why scholars doubt the historical authenticity of its stories and sayings moreso than those in the Synoptics, see link. I am not calling anyone names, I am merely sharing the kinds of questions New Testament scholars ponder when they examine the Gospels in their most probable order of final composition:

      But viewing this question of The Baptist’s doubt in a more scholarly fashion, one can’t help but notice that the Baptist in the fourth Gospel has no doubts at all, even knows that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world right from the start. In fact everyone in the first chapter of the fourth Gospel knows who Jesus is, and Jesus spends the rest of the Gospel telling people who he is, without telling a single parable about the Kingdom of God, but instead talking about taking about himself. And when Jesus is arrested he says I am he, and everyone falls down.

      Like

    • the four gospels are like 4 different eye-witnesses on each of 4 corners of a traffic accident. If they were exactly the same, we would know there was collusion before testifying. The differences in details actually testify and affirm their truthfulness, rather than doubt them. All 4 Gospels are true, historically and theologically.

      Like

    • “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

      LOL

      Like

    • quote :

      1) Doesn’t matter who wrote it. I was merely addressing you because you appropriated it for your blog. Nor am I blaming you or calling anyone any names. 2) If the original piece was based “on one Gospel,” Matt., then where in Matt. does it say, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” You and I both know that is only found in the fourth Gospel, so the person is mixing up Gospel tales. 3) The differences between John and the Synoptics are more than minor.

      In Mark, the earliest Gospel, the implication is that Jesus alone saw the heavens open, spirit descend, and heard the voice from heaven, just as Jesus alone was aware of that same spirit leading him immediately after his baptism into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. For GMark states, “he (jesus) saw the heavens open…” And the voice from heaven said, “YOU are my beloved son, with yOU I am well pleased,” as if jesus alone is being addressed and hearing the message. Mark also has no conversations between the Baptist and Jesus. So in Mark the Baptist could simply be an apocalyptic preacher who did not see or hear anything unusual happening at Jesus’s baptism which makes perfect sense later in Mark when the Baptist expresses his doubts. Now compare how the Baptist’s role expands in latter Gospels along with the Baptist’s recognition of who Jesus was.

      In the next Gospel, chronologically speaking, Matthew, we read that a conversation takes place in which the Baptist is depicted as not wanting to baptize Jesus but be baptized by him (as I said, this is not found in Mark). Furthermore, some manuscripts of Matt. drop the “to him” at the end of the phrase, “and the heavens were opened,” thus implying that Jesus was no longer the only one who saw the heavens open. Nor is the voice from heaven addressed to Jesus alone as in Mark’s version that went, “YOU are my beloved son, with YOU I am well pleased,” but instead Matt. has the voice address everyone, not just Jesus alone, so Matt. writes, “THIS is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.” (I can also multiply instances of GMatt. making GMark’s story grander, but let’s stick with this one instance, the baptismal scene.)

      While GLuke goes even further than Matthew, opening his Gospel with two miraculous birth tales, not just one as in Matthew (of course Mark lacks all miraculous birth tales and begins with Jesus being specially chosen at his baptism, the moment the spirit descends on him).

      Luke adds a tale not just about Jesus being born miraculously but adds a second tale, about the Baptist being born via miraculous preplanned events. And Luke also leaves out that the heavens opened “to him,” and implies the crowd saw and heard everything, again, contra Mark and more like Matt.

      By the time the fourth Gospel is composed, the Baptist himself is depicted testifying in the FIRST person, “I (John the Baptist) saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him (Jesus)… But He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the holy spirit’ and I (John the Baptist) have seen and borne witness that this is the son of God. The next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, ‘Behold the lamb of god.'”

      It doesn’t get any grander than a first person testimony from the Baptist himself as to what he says he saw with his own eyes, and quite a distance from the original far less impressive tale in the earliest Gospel, Mark.

      Thus concludes my basic case, namely that the doubts of the Baptist seem fully valid in the context of what the earliest Gospel said about Jesus’s baptism in which only Jesus saw the heavens open and the voice addressing him alone. But GMark’s tale of the Baptist’s doubts makes less sense in the latter two Synoptics since they have everyone see a miracle at Jesus’s baptism, not just Jesus, and GLuke even has the Baptist abe born miraculously and leap in the womb for Jesus! and make the Baptist a relative of Jesus. By the time the fourth Gospel was written the Markan tale of the Baptists’s doubts is dropped completely.

      To back up what I wrote about the fourth gospel not containing only minor differences from the Synoptics, along with examples of why scholars doubt the historical authenticity of its stories and sayings moreso than those in the Synoptics, see link. I am not calling anyone names, I am merely sharing the kinds of questions New Testament scholars ponder when they examine the Gospels in their most probable order of final composition:

      But viewing this question of The Baptist’s doubt in a more scholarly fashion, one can’t help but notice that the Baptist in the fourth Gospel has no doubts at all, even knows that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world right from the start. In fact everyone in the first chapter of the fourth Gospel knows who Jesus is, and Jesus spends the rest of the Gospel telling people who he is, without telling a single parable about the Kingdom of God, but instead talking about taking about himself. And when Jesus is arrested he says I am he, and everyone falls down.

      Like

    • in the gospel of john, the baptist has been converted into a christian. you are a blind christian if you cannot see this. why does john the baptist speak like a christian in john, but mark doesn’t have him see anything special about jesus?

      Like

    • “If they were exactly the same, we would know there was collusion before testifying. ”

      but they are, luke has chunks of mark in his story . he even says he knows of writings other than his. matthew has all of mark in his account .

      why all experts admit that matthew and luke do a repair job on mark?

      Like

  31. Also, God “came down” and consumed the offerings and showed His acceptance of God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) ritual:

    22 Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. (summary of Leviticus chapters 1-8)
    23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.
    24 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

    Leviticus 9:22-24

    So, again, “God-breathed rituals” are valid; but yours are not, since they are 600 years later and not inspired and yours is just a human book with human dead external dry rituals that cannot cleanse the heart.

    Like

    • god eating animal through fire means rituals of blood letting reach the heart?

      Like

    • death was God’s judgement against sin. You really need to read the Bible starting in Genesis and just go systematically through, chapter by chapter; rather than atheists and skeptics and Islamic web-sites or Islamic 600 years late presuppositions.

      Like

    • so you agree then if yhwh told jews to do repetitive rituals and they are “god breath” then it should be encouraged and practiced regardless if it is repetitive ? so you would have had no problem with burning animals, slicing them and sending them off to wilderness? all “god breathed” ?

      Like

    • Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 answer all of this.

      Like

    • “death was God’s judgement against sin”

      actually god didn’t want adam and eve to live forever after they got knowledge from the tree of knowledge. before they got knowledge, god created creature without knowledge of good and evil so obviously luscious apples would be tempting to eat. if a dog chases a cat, then it is not the dogs fault, if eve is made from a nature which says luscious apples and intelligence is good to get, then it is not the fault of eve who was tempted by seeing a luscious apple.

      Like

    • Qur’an 20:121 shows both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit tree that God had commanded them not to eat.

      “Go down, all of you, and become enemies of one another . . . ” – Surah 2:36
      shows the sin of Adam and Eve eating the fruit causing the consequences upon all humans. Seems to indicate a kind of original sin.

      SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
      But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.”

      Surah 2:36

      قلنا اهبطوا منها جميعا فاما ياتينكم مني هدى فمن تبع هداي فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون

      SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
      We said, “Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance – there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
      Surah 2:38

      “all of you” is جمیعا – a clear understanding of more than 2. We have this in Farsi also which means “all” and it comes from root verb of Jam’e جمع , which means “to collect”, “to sum up”, “to add”, “to gather up” (more than one thing). It is also used of a Mosque/ Masjid – “Jami” – the place of gathering together” and the word for Friday, جمعه – comes that root – the day to gather and go to worship at the Masjid. Masjid means the “place of bowing down” and Jami means the place of gathering.

      It it interesting to me the the word اهبطوا (go down, descend) – in Farsi we get the word for “the fall” of mankind from this root – هبوط

      that they would go down to the earth and become enemies to each other.

      اهبطوا بعضكم لبعض عدو
      Literally “some of you to some of you become enemies of one another”. (verse 36) بعضی ، بعض – we have this word in Farsi, meaning “some”. Seems to include more than just Adam and Eve!

      Here is the commentary of Ibn Kathir regarding Qur’an, Surah 2:38-39:

      “Allah informs of His warning to Adam, his wife and Satan, their offspring, when he ordered them to descend from Paradise. He says he will send messengers with Scriptures, signs and proofs… ”

      (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], pp. 109-110; bold emphasis mine)

      Also, the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali (one of the most, if not the most, standard English versions of the Qur’an) in his commentary in the footnotes of Surah 2:36, footnote 53, page 17.

      “… Note the transition in Arabic from the singular number in ii. 33, to the dual in ii. 35, and the plural here [2:36], which I have indicated in English by ‘All ye people.’ Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind, and the sexes go together in all spiritual matters. Moreover, the expulsion applied to Adam, Eve, and Satan, and the Arabic plural is appropriate for any number greater than two.” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the meanings and Commentary, The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd, Saudi Arabia, 1413 Hegira, footnote 53, page 17). bolding my emphasis

      Ibn Kathir wrote in commenting on Surah 2:34:

      “This Ayah mentions the great honor that Allah granted Adam, and Allah reminded Adam’s offspring of this fact. Allah commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam, as this Ayah and many Hadiths testify, such as the Hadith about the intercession that we discussed. There is a Hadith about the supplication of Musa, “O my Lord! Show me Adam who caused us and himself to be thrown out of Paradise.” When Musa met Adam, he said to him, “Are you Adam whom Allah created with His Own Hands, blew life into and commanded the angels to prostrate before?” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], Parts 1 and 2, Volume 1, p. 193; bold emphasis mine)

      Jalalayn’s commentary:

      “Then Satan, Iblīs, caused them to slip, he caused them to be removed (fa-azallahumā: a variant reading has fa-azālahumā: he caused them to be away from it) therefrom, that is, from the Garden, when he said to them, ‘Shall I point you to the tree of eternity’ [cf. Q. 20:120], and swore to them by God that he was only giving good advice to them, and so they ate of it; and brought them out of what they were in, of bliss; and We said, ‘Go down, to earth, both of you and all those comprised by your seed; some of you, of your progeny, an enemy to the other, through your wronging one another; and in the earth a dwelling, a place of settlement, shall be yours, and enjoyment, of whatever of its vegetation you may enjoy, for a while’, [until] the time your terms [of life] are concluded.”
      (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 2:36; bold emphasis mine)

      These Islamic commentaries and Hadith seem to understand the Islamic sources as including the offspring of Adam and Eve and spreading to all humankind.

      seems to teach some kind of original sin that caused consequences to come onto all of humanity.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/does-islam-really-teach-that-there-is-no-original-inherited-sin-that-spread-to-all-mankind/

      Like

    • look at the biblical account, the bible account according to you is “god breath”

      in it, it says that TWO magical TREES

      gave power to KNOW wrong and RIGHT

      and POWER TO LIVE FOREVER

      MAGICAL TREES

      your bible CURSED a nature which he CREATED WEAK and without knowledge of good and bad

      here is proof

      “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

      Like

    • “It it interesting to me the the word اهبطوا (go down, descend) – in Farsi we get the word for “the fall” of mankind from this root – هبوط”

      is this what washing yourself in filthy blood has caused in you ?

      “that they would go down to the earth and become enemies to each other.”

      but they were ALREADY forgiven. i can do commentaries for you too

      quote :

      In Surah Baqarah, as one can tell from the above, the statement ‘get you down’ is made twice. One when the couple committed the sin. The next, after their repentance.

      Certain commentators pointed out the subtlety of this DOUBLE usage of “get down from here) and the second usage clarifies that this whole purpose of being placed in this world temporarily with Satan as a clear enemy (stated in the first usage) was for TRIAL, meaning it was happening regardless of the incident.

      The fact that couple was forgiven before this second usage also emphatically corroborates this notion.

      and

      The phrase ‘get down from here’ doesn’t have to apply to ‘literal descent. The same phrase is, for example, used by Moses when he told the Israelites, after they requested certain foods while wandering in the desert, to ‘get down’ to Misr. It is also used when those on the Ark or told to leave after settling in Mount Judi in a similar manner. It simply can refer to one place to another.

      2.

      The forgiveness occurs per the Quran when they are still in the ‘garden’ after trying to hide their shame, God inspired in them the words of repentance and they were forgiven.

      Then the command to get down is actually made as per 7:22-24.

      Surah Baqarah makes the statement twice in a manner for primarily rhetorical purposes as to the Surah.

      The second usage of ‘get out from her mentions the fact God would send guidance and in the context of the Surah it has a subtle additional purpose as related to the Bani Israel rejection of the guidance of Muhammad being emphasized in this Surah. The first usage establishes the trial, the second reminds the Bani Israel that rejection of guidance will lead them to hell.

      Like

    • the adam and eve story in the quran is about adam repenting and satan never repenting .
      don’t abuse religious scriptures you have no understanding of.

      satan was too arrogant to repent, adam was humble.

      in your religion. TWO magic trees allowed man to be in COMPETITION with god.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. “Rituals are only good if they are from God ”

    regardless if they are repetitive?

    Like

  33. Another short video that destroys Muslims’ arguments (here Shabir Ally, and also Zakir Hossein, and any other Muslim arguments) against the crucifixion and death of Jesus. It destroys Surah 4:157, which brings the whole Qur’an into question as to it’s credibility.

    Like

  34. John Gilchrist on the sign of Jonah – excellent. Destroys all the Muslim arguments.

    http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/jonah.html

    Like

  35. The Hadith and Qur’an Surah 91:8 seems to teach that Allah put evil into humans at creation.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/islam-and-original-sin/

    Like

  36. Ken has taken Sam’s position! It’s a sign of desperation.

    Like

    • He made a good case for some kind of original sin in the Islamic sources. When he sticks to issues, texts, history, intellectual arguments, he does some good work. I have not seen any one refute this.

      It is when he mixes it with bombast, name calling, ad hominem, a spirit of vengeance, thinking he is a prophet, and sinful anger that ruins his testimony.

      Like

    • You read the revelation from Allah(sw) with greco- roman culture that is embedded in your heart, oh human being worshiper
      You need to throw those pagan glasses.

      You have to read the Islamic literature with its own historically & theologically context.

      We have not seen any good argument so we are not gonna waste our time with ignorance of missionaries about Islam and its beliefs.
      It’s the same accusation that we face from christens when they say we worship the prophet pbuh!

      Like

  37. I noticed that no one has been able to deal with or refute these 2 posts I wrote above; so I repeat them:

    Zakir Hussein and you guys are trying to tell us that Hebrews 5:7 means that Jesus did not die on the cross?
    Obviously you guys don’t know how to read a book and see the verse in context.
    Amazing to me !!
    Dr. White is right – the way that Jesus was saved was by the resurrection from the dead. He died, and then on the 3rd day rose from the dead in power. it says God the Father is “able” to save Him from death,it does not say that God the Father took Him to Himself or raised Him to heaven before the cross or before death; and remember Jesus said, “But not My will, but Thy will be done” (Luke 22:42) all the other verses below speak of Jesus willingly offering Himself as a offering, a sacrifice, which points to Isaiah 53:10 – “if He would offer Himself as a guilt offering”, etc.

    Read these verses through and see that there is no way to interpret Hebrews 5:7 as somehow that Jesus was taken away before the cross and not crucified and did not die.

    He suffered, was crucified, died, buried, and rose from the dead.

    Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,
    21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

    Hebrews 13:20-21

    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

    Hebrews 1:3

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    Hebrews 2:9

    For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

    Hebrews 2:10

    For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source . . .
    Hebrews 2:11 (see Hebrews 10:10-14 – we are sanctified by the sacrifice / offering/ death of Jesus)

    Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

    Hebrews 2:14

    In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.
    8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
    9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

    Hebrews 5:7-9

    25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
    26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
    27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up Himself.

    Hebrews 7:25-27

    11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
    12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
    13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
    14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

    Hebrews 9:11-14

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
    25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
    26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
    28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    Hebrews 9:24-28

    10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
    11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
    12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
    13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
    14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

    Hebrews 10:10-14

    Like

    Reply ↓

    Ken Temple
    August 25, 2017 • 1:51 pm
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

    Hebrews 1:3

    Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Hebrews 9:22

    See the “purification by blood” is about His death on the cross.

    Like

    • Fawaz had refuted that already

      “The people to whom the author was writing had come to believe that Christ had been saved because the One who had the power to save him from death answered his prayer. (It is obvious from the text that the prayer referenced here was at Gethsemene which was to be saved and not about anything else). The author of Hebrews is affirming the basis of their view i.e. the supplication to be saved and the fact that the Psalms show a saved Messiah whose prayers are answered. But instead of accepting this at face value he is going for a “higher interpretation”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • that is not a refutation at all. Read all the verses above, in the whole book, from beginning to end. The way that God the Father answered Jesus’ prayer was to give Him grace and strength to endure the sufferings and death; as the submissive attitude of Jesus shows, “not My will but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42 and see parallels in mark and Matthew, etc. )

      Amazing that you can ignore all the other verses in Hebrews that speak of Jesus’ suffering of death and sacrifice and offering and and blood and powerful atonement/propitiation and purification of sins and sanctification of His people by the death / offering of Jesus.

      Amazing !!

      Like

    • It seems you still didn’t get the point.
      We say that the author of your hebrew book whom you don’t who he was tried hard to escape from a belief which had been already adopted by people by going for a “higher interpretation” while it is obvious from the text that the prayer referenced here was at Gethsemane which was to be saved and not about anything else.

      Like

    • “Father answered Jesus’ prayer was to give Him grace and strength to endure the sufferings and death”
      Not at all!
      Jesus’ should have prayed like this then “Father give me the grace and the strength …”
      Also, why would giving Jesus the the grace and the strength not the same of Father’s will?

      Like

  38. “Ken Temple
    August 26, 2017 • 6:55 pm
    Why does Paul need to repeat the empty tomb history when he probably knows that it exists in Mark, Matthew, and Luke ?”

    the point is that this guy does not say that a TOMB was discovered. he REPEATS himself SILLY. he parrots himself silly, but he does not mention that ANYONE discovered the “empty tomb”

    bart ehrman says :

    Bart Ehrman (How Jesus Became God, pp. 141-2) explains:

    “It is important to realize that all the statements of the two sections of the creed are tightly parallel to one another in every respect — except one. The second section contains a name as part of the tangible proof for the statement that Jesus was raised: ‘He appeared to [literally: ‘he was seen by’] Cephas.’ The fourth statement of the first section does not name any authorizing party. There we are told simply that ‘he was buried’ — not that he was buried by anyone in particular. Given the effort that the author of this creed has taken to make every statement of the first section correspond to the parallel statement of the second section, and vice versa, this should give us pause. It would have been very easy indeed to make the parallel precise, simply by saying ‘he was buried by Joseph [of Arimathea].’ Why didn’t the author make this precise parallel? My hunch is that it is because he knew nothing about a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.”

    “He quotes from Matthew and Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18”

    what does this even mean?

    Ken Temple
    August 26, 2017 • 6:59 pm

    “When Mark has the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8), you jump to ask, “why he don’t have the bodily appearances like in Luke 24 and John 20-21 ?”

    IF YOU ONLY had marks version, where in the story is there even one indication that the women FLED TO THE disciples?

    the women have FEAR overtake them and they say NOTHING to ANYONE

    yes, if mark KNEW of the bodily appearances , why he does not narrate them?

    mark NARRATES stories in which NO one is an EYEWITNESS(when jesus is cast into the wilderness), why did he end his account with the women RUNNING away and not even mention what anyone saw?

    mark has 3 DIFFERENT versions AVAILABLE to him ACCORDING TO YOU, (luke, matthew and JOHN) , he says

    naah, i prefer the women RUNNING AWAY ?

    what we have in the earliest version of the story is that no woman relays the information . christians like you have to BASTARDIZE the text and pretend that mark knows that the SPOKE to peter, when the text clearly says

    “they said NOTHING TO anyone”

    compare to john where woman JUST TURNS AROUND and sees a gardener

    wouldn’t that be ANYONE?

    when mary runs to peter, wouldn’t that be “anyone” ?


    When Paul doesn’t mention empty tomb you go back to Mark and Matthew and Luke and John, which all have the empty tomb.”

    the EARLIEST source just says he was BURIED

    WHERE? unknown

    it could just have been a belief.

    jews used to get BURIED ALL the time and one would ASSUME a jewish burial. the earliest source does not tell us that their were ANY witnesses to the burial. only “he was buried”

    Liked by 1 person

  39. forgive sins , no blood or power needed :

    McDowell puts forward a few Gospel passages (by quoting John Walvoord who in turn cites some Gospel passages) as evidence for Jesus being omnipotent:

    The evidence for the omnipotence of Christ is as decisive as proof for other attributes. Sometimes it takes the form of physical power, but more often it refers to authority over creation. Christ has the power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6), all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18), power over nature (Luke 8:25), power over his own life (John 10:18), power to give eternal life to others (John 17:2), power to heal physically, as witnessed by his many miracles, as well as power to cast out demons (Mark 1:29-34)… (McDowell quoting Walvoord, Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity, p.54)

    Keep in mind that the main question at issue in relation to MTA is not whether Jesus was in fact eternally omnipotent, nor is the issue whether Jesus’ disciples or the authors of the NT believed Jesus to be eternally omnipotent. The question at issue here is whether Jesus CLAIMED or IMPLIED that he was eternally omnipotent.
    ========================
    1. The “Power” to Forgive Sins

    Matthew 9:6 (NRSV)
    6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.”

    First of all, as this translation indicates, Jesus appears to be talking about AUTHORITY here, not about POWER.

    Second of all, it is easy to forgive someone’s sins. All you have to do is say “I forgive you” to the person who wronged you, and mean it. No special supernatural power is required to perform this mundane human action.

    Third, it is so easy to forgive that Jesus demanded that his followers forgive those who wrong them “seventy-seven times”:

    Matthew 18:21-22 (NRSV)
    21 Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?”
    22 Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

    The real trick, of course, is to forgive someone for wrongs they have committed against another person, when you (who are doing the forgiving) are not the person who was wronged. If a friend of mine steals money or something valuable from me, then I can forgive him or her for that selfish action. But if a friend of mine steals money or something valuable from somebody else, someone who I don’t even know, then how can I forgive my friend for the wrong against that other person?

    The obstacle here is not that I lack some magical “forgiveness power”; the problem is that I don’t have the RIGHT to forgive my friend for wronging somebody else. The problem is one of AUTHORITY, not POWER. Perhaps God, unlike mere mortals, can forgive my friend for wronging somebody else, but not because God has some supernatural “forgiveness power”. God can perform such forgiving only if it is MORALLY RIGHT for God to do this, only if God has the MORAL AUTHORITY to hand out that sort of forgiveness.

    Fourth, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus bestowed such forgiveness authority on his inner circle of disciples:

    John 20:22-23 (NRSV)
    22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
    23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

    If having the authority to forgive a person’s sins means that one is eternally omnipotent, then we would have to conclude that each one of the eleven remaining disciples from the inner-circle must also be eternally omnipotent. But that is absurd and is contrary to the doctrines of the Christian faith, so this argument proves too much. The claim that someone has the authority to forgive sins does NOT imply that this person is eternally omnipotent.
    ========================

    REPENT for the kingdom of god didn’t come:

    The Taqiyyah of Biblical Jesus
    Repent or not to repent? Standard Christian soteriology demands that Jesus be made a liar
    by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

    Christian dogma requires Christians to believe that the only way possible for God to forgive a human being of any and all transgressions is through vicarious atonement, i.e., the sacrifice or Jesus, or more specifically, the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, the second person of the triune godhead. As the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrews declares, ” For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.” (NLT, Hebrews 9:22) As a matter of fact, Christian apologists insist that without blood, if God “simply” forgives then there is tension between His attributes of Mercy and Just. The common refrain in their preaching is, “God would be unjust to simply turn a blind eye to sin and forgive without punishment.” And so, the horrible and shameful death of Christ on the accursed cross is God’s divine retribution, which then permits believers in it to earn God’s forgiveness. Never mind the unresolved existential moral conundrum of punishing the innocent to let the guilty go free and in fact, not only is the criminal offender freed, he is rewarded with everlasting bliss, paradise, but is God truly this vampiric being that needs blood, which is undeniably the apparent portrayal? If that is so then I’m afraid Christians have relegated their very saviour to the category of deceivers. If blood is absolutely necessary for divine forgiveness and without it as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness,” then Jesus spoke with tongue in cheek when he said:

    “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (NIV, Matthew 4:17)

    According to the chronological timeline, he uttered that instruction many, many moons before the crucifixion and so there was not a single drop blood available for God to be able to forgive a single soul on earth. The word for ‘repent’ in the verse comes from the Greek Μετανοεῖτε (metaneoite) which does mean to earnestly seek God’s forgiveness and pardon for one’s sins and transgressions. Thayer’s Lexicon defines the term in the following manner:

    “…used especially of those who, conscious of their sins and with manifest tokens of sorrow, are intent; on obtaining God’s pardon;”

    (Thayer, J. H. [2012]. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 405)

    The Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible renders the verse in a more explicit manner:

    “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
    ‘Penance’ requires that the person intently seeks someone’s pardon and in this case, it is God’s pardon that is sought. What pardon, exactly? If Jesus is God and the Divine Will has always determined that blood is the only key that allows him to forgive, then he would have been perfectly aware that there was zero pardon for any and all penitent persons up to the point of the crucifixion, which did not exist at the time of the instruction to repent that he gave. In short, Christianity deems Jesus as one that actually meant the following when he spoke of repentance:
    “Repent, but know that when you do that nobody will hear you and so it is actually futile and useless, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
    Facetious as the above is, Jesus didn’t actually say that. If he did, then the image wouldn’t be so damnable. But what Jesus actually said according to the Bible shows that he did mean to have people ask for repentance, making them believe they could be forgiven while knowing full well that there was no forgiveness until much later when he would climb the cross and die on it.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Also, 1 Corinthians 14:37 shows Paul knew he was writing God’s word.

    (along with all the other verses I wrote above)

    see above:

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/08/19/was-jesus-crucified-debate-zakir-hussain-vs-dr-james-white/#comment-55176

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED? DEBATE – ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS DR JAMES WHITE | kokicat
  2. Muslims who ignore the context of a Bible book | Apologetics and Agape

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: