80 replies

  1. The Devil would be so angry to that person who says Islam is of the Devil because he never taught Islam.

    The Devil says to that person: “Are you out of your mind? Did you read what inside the Quran? Do you think I’m asking people to worship One God Alone? Do you think I’m asking people to say Laa ilaaha illallahu? Do you think I’m asking people to NOT commit adultery, drunk, gambling, murders, lies? You are worst than me man! You gonna with me in hell but your place is deeper than me! But it’s OK keep doing that you’re my best friend in hell”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Quran Sura 35 – The Originator

    5. O mankind! Verily, the Promise of Allah is true. So let not this present life deceive you, and let not the chief deceiver (Satan) deceive you about Allah.

    6. Surely, Satan is an enemy to you, so take (treat) him as an enemy. He only invites his followers that they may become the dwellers of the blazing Fire.

    7. Those who disbelieve, theirs will be a severe torment; and those who believe and do righteous good deeds, theirs will be forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise).

    Liked by 2 people

  3. 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

    Mark 8:31-33

    Denying the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus is Satanic.

    Like

  4. @ Ken,

    How can denying a claim (Mark 8:31-33) written down decades after Jesus by unkwown guy be satanic?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. @ Ken,

    I rather care for the truth than win an argument.

    Where does the author of this Gospel claim that he wrote Peter’s testimony?

    If what the author wrote was dictated to him by Peter, then the author was just an amanuensis of Peter and thus the Gospel should be titled after Peter only (Gospel According to Peter) as was the norm in the ancient as well as modern literature.

    The fact is that this Gospel, like the other three, was written ANONYMOUSLY. And none of the anonymous authors of these Gospels claimed to be an eyewitness or writing the testimony or dictation of anyone.

    The traditional claim for the authorship of this Gospel under discussion was first traced to Papais who wrote about a century after Jesus. Papais made the claim decades after the Gospels were written and he didn’t even indicate the source for his claim. Indeed, Papais was well known for inventing baseless things concerning Jesus and his disciples.

    And 1 & 2 Peter are known forgeries.

    So, you better be serious to tell me why is it “satanic” to deny the claim of this Gospel written by unkwown guy decades after Jesus based on oral traditions of his time and place??

    Liked by 1 person

    • Also Matthew has the same historical event that Jesus said to Peter get behind me Satan you’re not focusing on God’s thoughts

      Matthew 16

      Luke chapter 9 also has Jesus predicting his arrest and trials and death and resurrection.

      All four Gospels testify to the life and ministry and death on the cross of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead so we have four I witness testimonies like one witness on each corner of a traffic accident to confirm the historical event.

      Then we also have the apostle Paul and James a half brother of Jesus and the writer of Hebrews and Jude another half brother of Jesus so all in all we have nine witnesses to the live and trials and death and resurrection of Jesus.Then we also have the apostle Paul and James the half brother of Jesus and the writer of Hebrews and Jude another half brother of Jesus so all in all we have nine witnesses to the live trials and death and resurrection of Jesus

      Where is you only have one man who made a subjective claim from his own visions.
      Nine witnesses in a court of law is stronger than one man subjective claim that came 600 years too late.

      Like

  6. First and second Peter are not forgeries and the gospel according to Mark is clearly on the side of Christianity which confirmed that Peter is behind the gospel according to Mark for 600 years long before Islam came on the scene.

    Like

  7. @ Ken,

    You always appeal to the antiquity of Christianity (it came 600 years before Prophet Muhammad) as if it were a valid argument.

    First, this argument is a classical example of the logical fallacy of appeal to antiquity which is a very bad argument (http://logicalfallacies.info/appeal-to-tradition-2/).

    Second, it doesn’t matter how many years the truth (the Quran) came after falsehood (the Bible). God Almighty who is ever-living and ultimate witness of everything could well reveal the reality of things long after the events.

    Therefore, this flawed argument of yours convinces only yourself (and your likes) here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken,

      You still did not tell me why I should just blindly believe in the unreliable Christian tradition about the Gospels.

      Why shouldn’t I deny the claim of a book written decades after the event by an unkwown guy with clear biased motives ?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Maybe we should start by calling out that jesus never came with gospels, it was just gospel singular. Why do Christians sucessfully trip on what seems to be every word of the bible

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think Christians believe that Jesus “came with gospels”. Jesus preached or spoke the gospel or evangelion of God (Mark 1:14). Meaning the message or good news of God. Not a written document.

        There are written accounts – gospels – about Jesus’ ministry but Jesus did not come with those or any other written document as far as we know historically.

        Like

      • Because the historical evidence and church history for Mark, & 1-2 Peter is reliable and credible and then born out by 2 thousand years of good fruit by studying them and living by them, along with the rest of the NT and Trinitarian and Protestant theology.

        Islam comes along 600 years after Al Masih and contradicts the main things. (crucifixion, death, resurrection, Deity, Trinity, original sin, guilt, internal sins of the heart), and is warlike and aggression – conquering Byzantine, N. Africa, Spain, Persia, etc. – clearly it was an unjust religion. Surah 9:28-29

        You are just using enlightenment western scholarship for the past 200-300 years of skepticism and doubt and anti-supernatural bias scholarship to try to hold onto Islam.

        Like

    • It is a valid argument in relation to Islam, because Islam claims it is the fulfillment of the first 2 Monotheist religions, and even says the previous Scriptures are ‘sent down” نازل ، نزل and guidance and light and etc. and from God and exhorts Christians and Jews AT THE TIME of Muhammad – etc. – Surah 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94, and yet contradicts that principle by denial of the cross/resurrection, Deity of Christ, Sonship of Christ, Father and Son eternal relationship, The Trinity, etc.

      The argument is not “ours is older, therefore better”. Rather the argument is “Ours has to be better, because yours affirms it in principle, yet contradicts it in details, and is Islam is illogical since it totally contradicts Christianity; – it is illogical because it already keeps saying that the OT and NT are true. (Torah, Zobur, Injeel, etc.)

      Like

      • “Because the historical evidence and church history for Mark, & 1-2 Peter is reliable and credible”

        Response:

        So, the Church tradition about the Gospels must be reliable just because you say so! What a circular reasoning!

        Its quite clear why brother Paul Williams calls you “fundamentalist”.

        Like

      • “Islam comes along 600 years after Al Masih and contradicts the main things. (crucifixion, death, resurrection, Deity, Trinity, original sin”

        Response:

        The ultimate truth (Islam) from the ever-living God Almighty came 600 years after Al Masih and *corrects* the old lies that passed under the name of Al Masih (alleged crucifixion, death, resurrection, deity, trinity, original sin, etc).

        Its for this reason that I have very firm belief that Islam is the ultimate truth.
        —————————————-

        Its unfortunate that you dared called the logical fallacy of appeal to antiquity (old age) as a valid argument just because you think any logical fallacy is valid if its used against Islam !

        Islam came to complete God’s favor on mankind (Qur’an 5:3 etc) and corrects the LIES that passed over the centuries under the name of the Masih such as the alleged crucifixion, resurrection, deity, trinity, original sin etc.
        —————————————–

        You wrote:

        “Rather the argument is “Ours has to be better, because yours affirms it in principle, yet contradicts it in details”

        Response:

        Islam never affirms the alleged crucifixion, resurrection, deity of Jesus in any way. So, whoever claims that Islam affirms these is ignorant of Islam or is not honest at all.

        Just admit that this repeated Christian argument that Christianity has to be the truth just because its older than Islam is well known logical error of appeal to antiquity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The ultimate truth (Islam) from the ever-living Go rd Almighty came 600 years after Al Masih and *corrects* the old lies that passed under the name of Al Masih (alleged crucifixion, death, resurrection, deity, trinity, original sin, etc). Its for this reason that I have very firm belief that Islam is the ultimate truth.“

        Isn’t that just a circular argument?

        Even Ijaz Ahmad admitted in his recent debate that the crucifixion of Jesus likely happened, historically sbeaking. His reason for not accepting it, he said, is because he is a Muslim. Not because historical inquiry suggests othetwise. So this reasoning is just circular.

        Like

      • the problem is that it (Islam) did not correct; it misunderstood and was ignorant. It guts the main spiritual truths about Christ, but retains him as Al Masih and virgin born. It guts all the beauty and truth out of true religion. (The NT and Trinitarian Theology) It waged aggressive unjust war on Persia and Byzantines, N. Africa, and Spain. Yet, from the get go, it affirmed the previous Scriptures. ( Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 3:2-3, etc.) The Qur’an never says the text of Scripture was changed in such a way as for the message to be lost.) It guts true religion of peace, forgiveness, knowing God as a person, the love of God, etc. – The main emphasis in Islam is external laws and rituals and punishment and even execution for apostasy. It has no ultimate proper diagnosis of the human condition of the internal sins in the heart as the main problem with the world. (pride, arrogance, selfishness, jealousies, unforgiveness, rancor, spite, vengeance, lust, etc. )
        Genesis 6:5; Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30; Jeremiah 17:9

        Like

      • There is only one Set of Laws given to Moses (Moše), one collection of Songs composed by David (Daud), one Evangel given to Jesus (Iisoo), and one collection of Recitations to the Praiseworthy Nabi. Each were given to the people of the time, except for the latter which was meant for all humanity.
        The Qur’an basically calls Christians to hold fast on their scriptures and see if they are truly from God Almighty. You must question the very scripture you have read for aeons, concluding that most of what you have read is not revealed from the God. If you dare question the Recitation based on this, you will hold your corruption dearly until you come out of samsāra.
        Finally, you quote the aya in Sura Yunus out of context—if you doubt the story of the Firaun (pr-‘3) which We have given to thee, o Submitters, ask the Jews (who read that same story in a different POV) to confirm what We have given. That clears your doubt.
        Now enough reasoning with your impious tongues the Submitters since you have stood on a lower level plane since your birth. You still have a long way to go. Ego, ego, ego!

        Like

  8. @Marc
    I think it would be more beneficial to focus a discussion on a personal basis and not what most people think. May we be guided to truth and have the sincerity to appreciate it, ameen

    Like

    • @ Sabit
      Could you elsborate? I didn’t understand your point?

      Like

      • @Marc, you wrote:
        “I don’t think Christians believe that Jesus “came with gospels”

        That’s what I was replying to above

        Like

      • @ Sabit
        Do you believe that to be an incorrect statement?

        Christian belief is that Jesus came to preach orally the evangelion, the glad tidings of God as it says in Mark 1:14:

        “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee,proclaiming the good news of God.”

        Christians don’t believe what you attribute to them, namely: that Jesus came with several gospels

        Christians don’t believe Jesus came with a written document. And there’s no historical indication of such a belief or written document.

        Gospels – in the meaning of accounts -of Jesus ministry were composed by others.

        @Ken, can you confirm this is correct representation of the Christian petspective?

        Like

      • @Marc
        I’m querious if you love jesus as much as I hope you would, have you ever heard the story of jesus from an islamic source? That being said it would make me very interested on your personal thoughts.

        Like

      • @ Sabit
        I’m an atheist/agnostic, though that doesn’t mean I don’t “love” Jesus in the sense of that I try to weigh the history and message, instead of creating a figure that never was.

        In any case, I dont feel I’ve gotten an answer to my question.

        Like

      • @marc

        Everything you mentioned was accurate to the best of my knowledge. Sorry if I don’t elaborate very well and it caused you some frustration. I dont really type alot cause I suck at it and have trouble finding words. I thought you were a Christian is my fault and caused alittle confusion.

        Like

      • @Sabit
        No problem 😀

        Liked by 1 person

  9. @ Bashar

    Stating the mission of Islam (what Islam comes to do) is not circular reasoning.
    In circular reasoning, the premise assumes the conclusion. Here’s a good example of circular reasoning here:

    “Example #2:
    The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is… in the Bible”

    (Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Circular-Reasoning)

    Almost all Christians commit this circular logical fallacy in thier apologetics. They always argue that the Bible is God’s word because the Bible says so (in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 etc) or Jesus is God because the Bible says so etc.

    You are claiming that someone says the crucifixion LIKELY happened when your Bible is saying that it certainly happened. “Likely” means its not certain – just as the Holy Qur’an says “they didn’t kill him as a certainly”!

    The truth is that the crucifixion never happens except in the Bible and Christian tradition which also derives from the same Bible. That’s why its just speculative, circular reasoning, not a certainty.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken,

      Islam really comes among other things to correct the aberrations of Christianity concerning Jesus just as it corrects the aberrations of the Jews concerning the same Jesus. It misunderstood nothing.

      The Christian problem concerning the corrections of Islam on Christianity is that you don’t expect Islam to criticize your beliefs but only to restate your beliefs just as you invented them! Islam does not define or restate your beliefs, it criticizes the beliefs. So, it describes the trinity as polytheism which is a valid criticism of this doctrine.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The problem is that Islam was not a correction at all.

        It itself gutted the main issues of true religion.

        The main issues that Islam disagrees with Christianity are the main issues of truth that you need, in order to have peace with God and salvation from sin and eternal life.

        There is no power apart from the NT Jesus عیسی المسیح , His Deity, His incarnation by being born of the virgin Mary (John 1:1; 1:14; Luke 1:34-35); His atonement on the cross, His powerful resurrection from the dead, the power of the Holy Spirit; and what the Bible reveals to us that God is a Holy Trinity, 3 persons within the ONE God.

        “In the beginning was the Word (λογος = کلمه ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

        “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

        Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
        The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
        Luke 1:34-35

        Like

      • @ken
        “In the beginning was the Word (λογος = کلمه ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

        Let’s analyze
        1)”in the beginning…” What beginning? Is this a reference to the creation of jesus? The creator of all things has no beginning.
        1a)…”was the word.” Is it a special word? What’s so significant about this word? In the quran Allah says all he needs to do is say “be” and it is. That’s all I can think of.
        1b)”And the word was with god” ok, that i can understand.
        1c)”and the word was god” personally I would think the word was “be” for the reason I mentioned above.

        These are my own assumptions as to what john 1:1 would have been referring to and dont reflect the views of any islamic sources

        Liked by 1 person

      • And this is why you should not explain your gnosis to an unlearned person. In the beginning was the Logos/Kalima, It was with Theon, and Theos was the Logos/Kalima. The Logos/Shabd/Kalima was the always there in the beginning. An unknown force just made it expand further like the Big Bang. Then the Logos/Kalima took form visible to humans (whether physical or in subconscious), that is the acquisition of gnosis. This is why most Christians cannot let go of their conflation of Iesous (homo) *and* Christos (title or consciousness?). Until both can be distinguished the misunderstanding prevails for ever. Same with the Trinidad, an invention of the early Pauline ekklesia with base from Ptolemaic Egyptian Jewish diaspora.
        When the Qur’an refers to Isa ibn Maryam as “but a messenger and His Word”, it meant that he was the intermediary from the God to the lost sheep of Israel.
        Sacrifice of blood is only for unintentional sins. All you need is flour in your case.

        Like

    • Waziri. The argument you’re making is circular. You say the Quran came to “correct” the “old lies” of the Bible such as the crucifixion. How do we know the Bible “lies” about the crucifixion? Because the Quran came to “correct” the Bible’s lies such as the crucifixion. Circle combleeted.

      The argument is circular without even considering the historicity.

      Histotians agree that crucifixion of Jesus took place. Even Muslim scholars agree, there was a crucifixion but have to come up with all kinds of fancifull unhistorical interpretations such as Ibn Abbas’, so as not to make it Jesus.

      Even a Muslim like Ijaz Ahmad has to admit it likely took place. He cannot deny this on history. Becaiuse if he did everybody could just do the same and have a blatant disregard for historical method and evidence. He would never be able to debate on such a background and would never be able to “win” a debate.

      At least he imblicitly acknowledged the evidence is compelling.

      He is then forced to say that as a Muslim he cannot accept it. It’s just another double standard, but at least he is honest that historical evidence doesn’t count when it goes against his preconceived beliefs.

      The argument is both circular and unhistorical.

      Like

      • “They did not kill al-Masih ibn Maryam (by stoning as the Talmud declares such a sentence) nor let him die by the Stauros, but it appeared as if he was to them”. It appeared to be al-Masih, but it was not him. That is the confirmation of the Recitation, did not die but raise alive. Your Evangel accounts attest to this, but you rely on eyewitness accounts: “He breathed his last, gave up the ghost, etc.” and your own crazy theories: “his soul left the body, he was finished by Longinius, etc.” all conjecture per 158. Doubt has been cleared straight away. Ijaz said that the Christian loses everything since the burden of proof is on the Christian.
        If Jesus died for the sins of humankind, he should’ve been stoned to death.
        Debate is not about winning.

        Like

      • @ Bashar says:

        “Waziri. The argument you’re making is circular. You say the Quran came to “correct” the “old lies” of the Bible such as the crucifixion. How do we know the Bible “lies” about the crucifixion?”

        Response:

        Stating what the Quran came to is not circular reasoning.

        As I already pointed out, circular reasoning is when one’s premise assumes one’s conclusion. This is the classical definition of circular reasoning and stating the mission of the Holy Qur’an is nothing like circular reasoning.

        I already cited good examples of circular reasoning committed daily by Christians in their polemics. The Christian argument that the Bible is God’s because the Bible says so (in 1 Timothy 3:16-17 etc) is a good example of circular reasoning which is logically invalid. Also, the Christian argument that Jesus is God because the Bible says so is a circular reasoning which is invalid. In both these examples, the conclusion is assumed in the premise of the argument.

        You rightly asked, how do we know the Bible “lies” about the crucifixion? Not pointing out how the alleged crucifixion is a lie won’t make the argument circular argument.

        You assume that crucifixion has historical evidence without pointing out any such evidence. The reality is that there is no single INDEPENDENT historical evidence for the crucifixion. All the so-called historical evidence for the crucifixion only repeats what Christians say who in turn got it from the Bible. In other words, the crucifixion never exists outside the Bible! Is the Bible a historical source ? Nope!

        Like

      • @Carl, I kind of like your “translation”. Made me smile. You didn’t add anything apart from that though. You’re just restating the traditional Muslim narrative.

        But even Ijaz Ahmad had to bend to the historical evidence. He clearly said that he acknowledges that Jesus was probably crucified. When looking at history. But as a Muslim he cannot accept it. At least he is open about it.

        If you claim he didn’t say that you simply haven’t watched the debate. He openly admits it at from around the 1:27:30. You can even see Ijaz answers obnoxiously and aggressively as he realises he has been exposed.

        Like

      • Waziri, I’m sad to see that you cut my quote, as it shows clearly your circular reasoning. So that you could deal with it. So let me quote my full sentence:

        “You say the Quran came to “correct” the “old lies” of the Bible such as the crucifixion. How do we know the Bible “lies” about the crucifixion? Because the Quran came to “correct” the Bible’s lies such as the crucifixion”.

        And as you well know. Historians believe Jesus existed and was crucified on the basis of historical sources and analyses. This is the most reasonable, probable and economic solution.

        Even the Muslim scholars agree there was a crucifixion. They just have to make all kind of fancifull interbretations such as the substirution theory so as not to make it Jesus. But even the Quran does not say there was a substitution. And those theories clearly have no historical basis and are not credible. This is bure unhistorical speculation and also anachronistic.

        The only reason for not accepting the historicity is because of the preconceived notion that Jesus was not crucified.

        Even Ijaz Ahmad had to concede that point albeit aggresively and obnoxiously. So it’s simply a matter of circular unhistorical reasoning.

        To show to what absurd inhistorical and anachronistig length you have to go in order to defwnd the Muslim narrative let me quote from the tafsir of Ibn Kathir on surah 4:157:

        “Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, “Just before Allah raised `Isa to the heavens, `Isa went to his companions, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping water and he said, `There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me.’ He then asked, `Who volunteers that his image appear as mine, and be killed in my place. He will be with me (in Paradise)’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered and `Isa asked him to sit down. `Isa again asked for a volunteer, and the young man kept volunteering and `Isa asking him to sit down. Then the young man volunteered again and `Isa said, `You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of `Isa was cast over that man while `Isa ascended to heaven from a hole in the house. When the Jews came looking for `Isa, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of `Isa’s followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to heaven.’ Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (Nestorians), said, `The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to heaven.’ Another group, Muslims, said, `The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.’ The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad.” This statement has an authentic chain of narration leading to Ibn `Abbas, and An-Nasa’i narrated it through Abu Kurayb who reported it from Abu Mu`awiyah. Many among the Salaf stated that `Isa asked if someone would volunteer for his appearance to be cast over him, and that he will be killed instead of `Isa, for which he would be his companion in Paradise”.

        https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/4.157

        Clearly, the most historical and economic explanation is that of the historians and the gospels, Jesus was crucified. The Muslim narrative raises more historical problems and anachronisms and with no vredible historical evidence. It’s just to wscape the preconceived notion. The historical sources and historians analysis is much the better explanation and evidence.

        Like

      • Bashar, glad that you like my creative typing. In the 1:27:50 timestamp Stephen asks Ijaz about the historical Jesus, and how Ijaz analyses the historical text(s). Are those histories or historians reliable? Does the description(s) match the person(s) in question? Distinguishing truth from falsehood is purely subjective. They could be right or they could be wrong. As Churchill said, history is written by victors.

        High probability does not mean majority wins. The only sure way that a certain event is true or not is when you were there at that time (do you have a time machine?) or the witnesses are still alive (almost impossible to find their accounts). Do you have a better critique on Ijaz on the crossfire?

        Like

      • @Carl, Hope to see more creative translations from you’re hand😀 they’re fun!

        You’re right. The only way to be sure is to have a time machine. Alas, I don’t.

        And even then we can’t be sure, because of the substitution theory cop out.

        But we’re not talking of a time machine here. We’re talking about historical method and scholarship. It’s probably what happend.

        Did you watch the whole 10 minute crossfire?

        Ijaz Ahmad clearly had to admit that its the best historical explanation. Only he could not accept it because of his preconceived Muslim prejudice. So he is not objective.

        The problem with the Muslim alternate narrative of substitution or swoon is that it creates more problems, is based on pure speculation and propagated by those who have a preconceived notion that Jesus wad not crucified.

        Like

  10. @Bashar

    “And as you well know. Historians believe Jesus existed and was crucified on the basis of historical sources and analyses.”

    Response:

    Perhaps you don’t know that there are historians who never believed Jesus even existed and historians who believed he existed but the crucifixion and the resurrection are not historical.

    And claiming that historians believed it as an evidence that its true is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority which is invalid.

    And how many times shall I repeat that ALL the so-called historical sources for the crucifixion are NOT independent historical sources for the crucifixion. Indeed, there is no single independent historical source for the crucifixion. This is very important which you keep ignoring.

    All the historical sources just repeat Christian tradition which in turn derives from the Bible. No independent historical confirmation for the crucifixion.

    That’s why I pointed out that outside the Bible, the crucifixion never existed. The Bible is ultimately the only evidence for the crucifixion which is clear circular reasoning – the Bible says crucifixion of Jesus happened because the Bible says it!

    Like

    • Yes, there are mythisist that claim Jesus never existed. But that explanation is in the extreme minority and the less economical. Fails to explain the evidence of the historical gospels, Q etc. If true it would even refute the Muslim position.

      The ressurection is a metaphysical claim not a historical one.

      Which non-Muslim historian believes in the historical Jesus and that he was not crucified? As I said even your own scholars are honest enough to confirm there was a crucifixion. They just have to make theories that it wasn’t Jesus.

      I don’t ignore it. It’s just illogical. Even if accepting your claim, which you haven’t given any evidence for, only your repeated claim, that they copied from each other, at least one source has to be indebendent.

      Paul, for example, wrote before any of the gospels were written. So if he didnt make up the crucifixion and nobody thinks he did, then he relied on a previous indebendent source.

      By your extrabiblical indebendent contemporary standard we don’t have evidence that Jesus even existed, that there were messianic claims, that Mary bore him, that he preached about God etc.

      The only reason you accept those claims is that they conform to your preconceived idea that Jesus existed and did those things.

      By the same token, the only reason why you accept all those things and not the crucifixion is because of your preconceived notion that it didn’t happen to Jesus.

      It’s the circular reasooning.

      You’re falling into the trap that Ijaz Ahmad was honest enough to acknowledge and which he could only escape by admitting that as a Muslim he did not believe it. But that using historical methods scholars agree, historically its brobable.

      The issue is that the Muslim account creates more historical problems and has to go with even more incredible stuff like substitution or swoon theory to accomodate the historical sources.

      Like

    • @ Bashar

      “And as you well know. Historians believe Jesus existed and was crucified on the basis of historical sources and analyses.”

      Response;

      Try to avoid the logical fallacy of appealing to authority here. Its an invalid argument.

      And you should know that there is no single independent historical source for the crucifixion of Jesus. All the so-called historical sources just repeated Christian tradition about the crucifixion which is traceable back to the Bible that claims it.

      You quoted a narration attributed to Ibn Abbas from the Tanwir Al Miqbas Min Tafsir Ibn Abbas which all Islamic scholars rejected as outright fabrication. There is no single evidence that this Tafsir was written by Ibn Abbas, a contemporary and companion of Prophet Muhammad.

      The Islamic narrative is based on the Quran which clearly states “They did not kill him for certainty” (Qur’an 4:157). The crucifixion would be a certainty only if there were independent historical confirmation of it. But since none exists, it remains a myth repeated by some historians. And just because some historians repeated a myth, wouldn’t make it other than the myth it is.

      Like

      • @ Wasiri

        Paul wrote before any gospel of the NT was in existence. Neither Paul or the Gospel’s sources were Biblical. So you’re claim is just wrong.

        Bart Ehrman discusses the question of earlier sources used by the gospels. They were not dependent on NT that didn’t exist yet.

        Which non-Muslim historian believes in the historical Jesus and that he was not crucified?

        I quoted from and linked to Ibn Kathir’s tafsir who claims the chain of narration of this specific interbretation is sahih. Take it up with your own scholars.

        But the fact remains, the evidence for crucifixion by your standards is exactly the same as for Jesus being historical, that Mary bore him, the Messianic claim, that he preached the injeel etc. Etc.

        You accept all those claims but reject the crucifixion, not because it is more imbrobable historically, but because of your preconceived notions.

        Even Ijaz Ahmad was honest enough to admit that, even as it totally ruined his case.

        Like

  11. @ Bashar,

    “Yes, there are mythisist that claim Jesus never existed. But that explanation is in the extreme minority and the less economical. Fails to explain the evidence of the historical gospels, Q etc. If true it would even refute the Muslim position.”.

    Response:

    I’m not talking about mysticists here but about academic scholars who believe that the story about the crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible is not historical because it lacks independent historical confirmation. Let me cite just one of these scholars.

    Professor George Albert Wells (1926-2017) was a professor of German and scholar of historical criticism at the London University. He pointed out that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus by Christians who were theologically motivated, but had no personal knowledge of Jesus. Therefore, he concluded that a rational person should believe the gospels only if they are INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED (Did Jesus Exist, 1975).

    Professor Wells argued that stories such as the CRUCIFIXION around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection, should be regarded as LEGENDARY as these stories have not been independently confirmed (https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=KuccAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    You wrote:

    “Paul, for example, wrote before any of the gospels were written. So if he didnt make up the crucifixion and nobody thinks he did, then he relied on a previous indebendent source.”

    Response:

    Paul was not an eyewitness for the alleged crucifixion let alone the alleged resurrection. Indeed, he never claimed to have ever met Jesus or saw him except through a vision (dream) decades after Jesus left the earth. So, Paul could never be a witness for any during the ministry of Jesus. And you failed to tell us the so-called independent source Paul used in his writings after he confessed clearly that he didn’t received what he taught from any man (Galatians 1:12). So, Paul clearly didn’t get his claims about Jesus from any independent historical source.

    Like

    • Fine. Sgain, though. This is an exteemely minority position.

      But then nothing about the historical Jesus has outside confirmation. So on that basis, we should conclude that he never existed, was not born by Mary, did not make messianic claims nor indeed wad crucified.

      So that ruins your own case. You accebt and reject based on preconceived notions.

      Like

      • And Wells wad not even a Biblical scholar. Here’s what Ehrman had to say about Wells as quoted in wiki:

        Bart Ehrman, in his Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman) (2012) stated: “The best-known mythicist of modern times — at least among the NT scholars who know of any mythicists at all — is George A. Wells…He has written many books and articles advocating a mythicist position, none more incisive than his 1975 book, Did Jesus Exist?. Wells is certainly one who does the hard legwork to make his case: Although an outsider to NT studies, he speaks the lingo of the field and has read deeply in its scholarship. Although most NT scholars will not (or do not) consider his work either convincing or particularly well argued.”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

        Like

    • “Bart Ehrman discusses the question of earlier sources used by the gospels. They were not dependent on NT that didn’t exist yet.”

      Response:

      The Gospels never used any historical source. The sources for the Gospels are largely oral traditions (common sayings of the people of their times) which are not historical. Bart Ehrman states clearly that the stories of Jesus in the Gospels are not historical:-

      “My point, though, is that the way Jesus came to be remembered by those who *read* these Gospel accounts, and formed their impressions of Jesus from them, was based on these narratives that are not true to history. They may be religiously true or theologically true, but they aren’t historically true. It is in that sense, and only in that sense, that I am referring to them as false memories.People still today have false memories of Jesus based on what they have read in the Bible.” (Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-memory-book-false-memories-and-the-life-of-jesus/)

      Like

      • Yes, oral sources that did not come from the Bible as you claimed.

        They were obviously independent of the Bible.

        But again, Ehrman considers the crucifixion historical and the best explanation. The sources whether oral or written – clearly preserved the crucifixion.

        You pick and chose only by preconceived notions.

        Like

      • In this post you can read Ehrmans analysis why historically the crucifixion took place.

        The best explanation of the historical sources is that Jesus wad crucified by the Romans. It is extremely inlikely that the details he points out would or could have been made up.

        I undetstand Muslims believe there was a crucifixion but it wasn’t Jesus and so may say those details are true.

        But this theory is also very inlikely and raise more questions than ir solves.

        https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-crucifixion-as-king-of-the-jews/

        Like

  12. @ Bashar

    Concerning Professor G. A Wells, even your quote of Ehrman says he studied deeply in New Testament scholarship. Besides, he was a scholar of historical criticism at the London University. So, he’s in the position to write about the historical Jesus.

    And its not true that Prof. G. A Wells is a mysticist – he was not. His recent books show that he believed in the existence of Jesus (so not a mysticist) but he didn’t believe in the story of the crucifixion and resurrection for lack of independent historical confirmation. He recently wrote:

    “Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a “mythicist” tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved “such a … complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.” (Source: https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html)

    And he’s not alone. There are many scholars of the New Testament as well as historians who never believed in the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus for lack of independent evidence.

    And the truth is not determined by majority of believers (that the majority believe it) but by evidence only.

    Like

    • Waziri.

      Again, the point Ehrman is making is that he is not a Biblical scholar and nobody found his argument convincing or well argued. According to his wiki bage he was a scholar in a different field. The wiki page of the book also states he is an “amateur historian”.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Wells_book)

      The resurrection again is not a historical argument. You state: “And he’s not alone. There are many scholars of the New Testament as well as historians who never believed in the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus for lack of independent evidence.”

      So blease cite the NT scholars who believe Jesus existed but that he was not crucified. Please don’t give me an scholar of German or any more “amateur historians”.

      An additional reason scholars believe that Jesus was crucified is apart from the many specifics given by Ehrman in the article I linked to, is the crucifixion makes sense of his public ministry, as Ehrman says. You can read the article here:

      https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-crucifixion-as-king-of-the-jews/

      As you can see the gospel writers accordingn to Ehrman didn’t make up the story. So they had a prior source or sources and it seems to be a different from Paul’s. So what you say is simply not true.

      Once more, you may question the crucifixion of Jesus for “lack of independent evidence.”, but by that standard you also have to question his existwnce, that he was born of Mary, the messianic claims, that he preached the injeel etc.

      You accept all of those but not the crucifixion only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas. Ijaz Ahmed admitted that himself. He was very honest even as he refuted his own objectivity.

      You might say there was a crucifixion but it wasn’t Jesus. But this theory is also very inlikely and raises more questions than it solves.

      Like

      • “Again, the point Ehrman is making is that he is not a Biblical scholar and nobody found his argument convincing or well argued.”

        Response:

        He’s a scholar of historical criticism and thus qualified for historical investigation about Jesus. You wrongly think that only New Testament scholars could talk about the historicity of the stories about Jesus and that scholars of historical criticism could not !

        And Ehrman was just wrong for claiming that Prof. G. A Wells is a mysticist when his recent books show that he believed Jesus existed.

        You wrote:

        “Once more, you may question the crucifixion of Jesus for “lack of independent evidence.”, but by that standard you also have to question his existwnce, that he was born of Mary, the messianic claims, that he preached the injeel etc”

        Response:

        Yes, if one would demand independent historical evidence for all these, one will get nothing! This only shows how very weak is the Christian boasted argument that your faith is based on “best attested fact of history”! This boastful statement is in the lips of almost every Christian apologist, yet upon investigation its not true as there is no independent historical evidence for the crucifixion (which you boast as the best arrested fact of history)!

        We brought the issue of lack of independent historical evidence for the crucifixion just to prove to Christian that you have no real justification for attacking is that we are gulity of rejecting ” best attested fact of history” (or “one of the most secure facts of history).

        If you claimed that the we rejected a claim of the Bible, we will agree since we don’t believe the Bible is God’s word.

        We believe Jesus existed, was born of virgin Mary and ascended to the heavens without experiencing death (like Enoch and Elijah) based on faith not based on human claim of being” best attested fact of history”!

        Like

      • No he was not a scholar of historical criticism. He was a scholar of German and maybr other things. He was an amateur historian. That’s what wiki statef and what Bart Ehrman politely hinnted at. And even if he was an NT “his work (is not considered) either convincing or particularly well argued”.

        Leta not go with an “amatuer historian” whoose work is not “either convincing or particularly well argued. Since you said There are many scholars of the New Testament as well as historians who never believed in the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus for lack of independent evidence.” Lets go with those scholars. And tesurectipnbis still not a historical claim.

        So blease cite the NT scholars who believe Jesus existed but that he was not crucified. Please don’t give me an scholar of German or any more “amateur historians”.

        Yes I know Muslims believe that. That’s the point.

        Its your beliefsystem that is the reason You accept all of those claims with no indebendent sources but not the crucifixion. Its only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas.

        Ijaz Ahmed admitted that himself. He was very honest even as he refuted his own objectivity.

        You might say there was a crucifixion but it wasn’t Jesus. But this theory is also very inlikely and raises more questions than it solves.

        Like

  13. @ Bashar,

    In the link you have given above, Ehrman didn’t say why he believe the crucifixion – but he said it in many of his other writings.

    Bart Ehrman never believe what the Gospels say about Jesus is historical. In fact, he made it clear in his Memory book that the stories of Jesus in the Bible are fake memories, not true to history.

    Bart believed the crucifixion just because Tacitus in his “Annals” (written around 110 CE) mentions it. Yet, Bart himself admitted that Tacitus just repeated what Christians were saying about Jesus in his time – thus even Tacitus is not an independent historical evidence for the crucifixion. Thus its suprising that Bart believes that the crucifixion “is one of the secure facts of history” and his basis for this belief is nothing but Tacitus repeated what Christians of his time were saying about Jesus (not independent evidence)! No wonder, scholars are humans with human errors!

    The bottom line here is that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are stories that began and ended in the Bible only – there is no single independent historical confirmation of these stories.

    There is no single contemporary Jewish or Greek or Roman historian or any other writer living at the time and land who confirms these stories. No single inscription from the first century confirms the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Nothing, zip evidence.

    Only some historians from the second century whose sources of the stories were not independent sources but common sayings (tradition) of Christians of their times and this tradition is traceable back to the same Bible. Its well known that historians repeat myths.

    So, I could not see why rejection of the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to be against real history since this story has never been independently confirmed historically.

    Like

    • Then you didnt real the full article. He gives four or five specifics including the INRI and other points. And he also shows ehy the stoey wasnt made up. Go back and read the entire Ehrman’s aeticle.

      https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-crucifixion-as-king-of-the-jews/

      And in the article he dosent even mention Tacitus.

      Yes it is tru Ehrman dosent believe in miuch about Jesus. But the crucifixion is one fact that he and allmost all consider to be historically factual and accurate. So that doesnt help you. Om the conteary.

      Like I said before, you may question the crucifixion of Jesus for “lack of independent evidence.”, but by that standard you also have to question his existwnce, that he was born of Mary, the messianic claims, that he preached the injeel etc.

      You accept all of those but not the crucifixion only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas. Ijaz Ahmed admitted that himself. He was very honest even as he refuted his own objectivity.

      You might say there was a crucifixion but it wasn’t Jesus. But this theory is also very inlikely and raises more questions than it solves.

      Like

      • Bashar,

        I thoroughly read the article and he didnt point out why he personally believed the crucifixion there.

        Yes, he mentioned some four reasons but dismissed the first two points as follows: “So those two points are suggestive, but not in themselves convincing.”

        And the other points which he said are correct are all about Jesus being aacused of calling himself “king of the Jews” (which Jesus denied having called himself this in some of the Gospels).

        And, yes, the article didn’t mention Tacitus and I didn’t say it did. I just pointed out that he pointed out why he believed in the crucifixion in his other writings which is based on Tacitus repeating Christian tradition about the crucifixion !

        I never say there was crucifixion for that matter since there is no enough historical evidence to claim there was. Many classical scholars of Islam never believed there was crucifixion such as Imam Razi in his Tafsir Al Razi, Imam Baidawi in his Tafsir titled Anwar al-Tanzil wa-Asrar al-Ta’wil and many others.

        Appeal to opinion of some that say there is crucifixion is just the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

        Like

      • You’re playing fast and loose. Ehrmann gives a handfull of reasons, shows why it wasnt made up and in the article says:

        “There are a few things we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus. For example: he was a Jewish preacher from rural Galilee who made a fateful trip to Jerusalem and was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate”.

        In his follow up articles he give even more reasons and arguments for the crucifixion. And the overwhelming consensus view is Jesus was cruified.

        You still haven’t cited all the NT scholars that nelieve in Jesus but not the crucifixion. Blease do.

        The only reason you accept his existence, he was born of Mary, his messianic claim, he was preachingnthe injeel etc. but not the crucifixion is only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas.

        Ijaz Ahmed admitted that himself. He was at least honest about it. The evidence is stacked against his case and had he not been Muslim he would have accepted it. Its simply double standards. I can respect at least he acknowledged the evidence is against him.

        Like

      • ‘Ijaz Ahmed admitted that himself.’
        Can you give a reference?

        Like

      • Its in the timestamped link above.

        Like

      • Sorry can you post it again pls?

        Like

  14. “There are a few things we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus. For example: he was a Jewish preacher from rural Galilee who made a fateful trip to Jerusalem and was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate”

    Response:

    This is the position of Bart but he didn’t point out why he believed both of these in the article you linked. Now, you claimed that he stated his reasons in his follow up articles. But you didn’t link to these articles and never point out the reasons in the follow up articles.

    As I hinted severally above, Bart pointed out in his books that to him the (independent) confirmation of the story of the crucifixion is the mentioning of it by Tacitus:-

    “Tacitus’s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius’s reign.” (Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2001). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium . Oxford University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0195124743)

    But what is damning for this position of Bart is that he admitted in his books that Tacitus didn’t get his story about Jesus from independent source but only from hearsay from Christians of his time:-

    “…would Tacitus know what he knew? It is pretty obvious that he had heard of Jesus, but he was writing eighty-five years after Jesus would have died, and by that time Christians were certainly telling stories of Jesus (the Gospels had been written already, for example), whether the mythcists are wrong or right. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR IN ANY EVENT THAT TACITUS IS BASING HIS COMMENT ABOUT JESUS ON HEARSAY RATHER THAN, SAY DETAILED HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if he even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says. He calls Pilate the ‘procurator’ of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of procurator (one who dealt principally with revenue collection), but of prefect (one who also had military forces at his command). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful). He therefore had heard the information. Whether he heard it from Christians or someone else is anyone’s guess.“ (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth By Bart D. Ehrman)

    Great many New Testament scholars and historians reached the same conclusion. Let me conclude here with the New Testament Professor Richard Thomas France:

    “THE BRIEF NOTICE IN TACITUS ANNALS XV.44 MENTIONS ONLY HIS TITLE, CHRISTUS, AND HIS EXECUTION IN JUDEA BY ORDER OF PONTIUS PILATUS. NOR IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TACITUS BASES THIS ON INDEPENDENT INFORMATION – IT IS WHAT CHRISTIANS WOULD BE SAYING IN ROME IN THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be CHRIATIAN PROPAGANDA THAN AN INDEPENDENT RECORD.” (The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus,The Founder Of Christianity by Professor R. T. France http://leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html)

    Like

  15. @ Bashar

    “The only reason you accept his existence, he was born of Mary, his messianic claim, he was preachingnthe injeel etc. but not the crucifixion is only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas”

    Response:

    How many times shall I point out to you that there is absolutely no historical confirmation for anything about Jesus ? So, we dont claim that we believe Jesus existed, was born by virgin Mary, worked some miracles, ascended into the heaven based on historical evidence. There is no historical evidence for any of these.

    We believe in Jesus as a Prophet of God who was born of virgin Mary, who worked some miracles, ascended to heaven without experiencing death (just like how Enoch and Elijah ascended to the heaven) based on FAITH.

    And I didn’t believe in the story of the crucifixion and resurrection for the fact that the reality (lack of independent historical evidence) confirms my faith that these didn’t occur as a certainty.

    To turn to your own Christian position concerning the crucifixion, you clearly only believed that Jesus was crucified based on your own preconceived ideas since you admitted that there is no single independent historical confirmation for it. And you didn’t reject it for lack of sufficient historical evidence simply because rejecting this myth will go against your preconceived ideas!
    —————————————-

    You severally mentions that Ijaz Ahmad admitted of the possibility of the crucifixion. In the video you linked above about Ijaz, he pointed out that there is no real historical evidence for the crucifixion. This is the whole purpose and tenor of the video. But let’s assume Ijaz said there is possibility that the crucifixion happened, why should I care for a mere opinion of Ijaz? Even real scholar in the caliber of Reza Aslan opined the crucifixion happened but this is only his own opinion which is not backed by any independent historical confirmation.

    I care only for evidence not mere opinion of a non scholar like Ijaz (assuming he said that) or any fringe opinion of a fringe scholar like Reza Aslan. Opinions are just opinions not evidence.

    Like

  16. @ Bashar

    “The only reason you accept his existence, he was born of Mary, his messianic claim, he was preachingnthe injeel etc. but not the crucifixion is only begause it goes against your preconceived ideas”

    Response:

    How many times shall I point out to you that there is absolutely no historical confirmation for anything about Jesus ?

    We don’t claim that we believe Jesus existed, was born by virgin Mary, worked some miracles, ascended into the heaven based on mere historical evidence. There is no historical evidence for any of these.

    We believe in Jesus as a Prophet of God who was born of virgin Mary, who worked some miracles, ascended to heaven without experiencing death (just like how Enoch and Elijah ascended to the heaven) based on FAITH.

    And I didn’t believe in the story of the crucifixion and resurrection for the fact that the reality (lack of independent historical evidence) confirms my faith that these didn’t occur as a certainty.

    To turn to your own Christian position concerning the crucifixion, you clearly only believed that Jesus was crucified based on your own preconceived ideas since you admitted that there is no single independent historical confirmation for it. And you didn’t reject it for lack of sufficient historical evidence simply because rejecting this myth will go against your preconceived ideas!
    —————————————-

    You severally mentions that Ijaz Ahmad admitted of the possibility of the crucifixion. In the video you linked above about Ijaz, he pointed out that there is no real historical evidence for the crucifixion. This is the whole purpose and tenor of the video. But let’s assume Ijaz said there is possibility that the crucifixion happened, why should I care for a mere opinion of Ijaz? Even real scholar in the caliber of Reza Aslan opined the crucifixion happened but this is only his own opinion which is not backed by any independent historical confirmation.

    I care only for evidence not mere opinion of a non scholar like Ijaz (assuming he said that) or any fringe opinion of a fringe scholar like Reza Aslan. Opinions are just opinions not evidence.

    Like

    • Waziri.
      Ehrman lays down the evidence in that article and the followup articles that led to his crucifixion by the Romans. Anybody can read that for themeselves.

      I never mentioned Tacitus. It’s you who keep mentioning him. The gospels are from the 1st century and as Ehrman shows the story wasn’t make it up. So early indebendent sources were used. And apparently reliable ones, for the crucifixion. Otherwise Ehrman who is critical of almost everything about the historicity of Jesus would/could have chosen to disregard such sources and have reached a different conclusion. Instead he argues why the evidence shows the crucifixion is historically acurate. Apparently they also got right he existed, was a preacher the gospel of God, Messianic claims etc.

      And this is the overwhelming consensus in the field. RT France too agrees that Jesus was crucified. So I don’t know why you keeb quoting people who all argue the crucIfixion is historical. You still haven’t cited all the NT scholars that nelieve in historical Jesus but not the crucifixion. Blease do.

      Resurection is still a metaphysical claim.

      “ How many times shall I point out to you that there is absolutely no historical confirmation for anything about Jesus ?

      We don’t claim that we believe Jesus existed, was born by virgin Mary, worked some miracles, ascended into the heaven based on mere historical evidence. There is no historical evidence for any of these.”

      That’s exactly the point. Its only your preconceived notions that determine what you accept and what you reject. There is no evidence by your standard.

      Here you reject the historical evidence and scholarly analysis by Ehrman and the crushing consensus of scholarship on the crucifixion. But you accept all the other stuff with no evidence.

      That’s why I keep using Ijaz Ahmad. Because he understands this and is honest enough to admit that using the historical method Jesus was probably crucified. Its just that as a Muslim it gooes againstt his prejudice and so rejects the crucifixion.

      Like

  17. Salam brother Atlas,

    People generally believed Reza Aslan as a scholar.

    Reza Aslan holds a B.A. in religious studies from Santa Clara University , a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) from Harvard Divinity School, and a PhD in sociology from the
    University of California, Santa Barbara.

    He is a member of the American Academy of Religion , the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Qur’anic Studies Association.

    Like

  18. Salam brother Atlas,

    People generally believed Reza Aslan as a scholar.

    Reza Aslan holds a B.A. in religious studies from Santa Clara University , a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) from Harvard Divinity School, and a PhD in sociology from the
    University of California, Santa Barbara.

    He is a member of the American Academy of Religion , the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Qur’anic Studies Association.

    Like

  19. @ Bashar

    I brought up Tacitus simply because Ehrman claims that he’s the only independent historical confirmation of the crucifixion while the same Ehrman admits that Tacitus just repeated hearsays about Jesus !

    You asked: “The gospels are from the 1st century and as Ehrman shows the story wasn’t make it up.”

    Response: So lies and made up stories were never there in the first century of Christianity! Is this what you’re claiming here?

    The Gospels were just propaganda writings written in the late first century (about half a century after Jesus) by unknown guys. Ehrman clearly says the stories about Jesus in these Gospels aren’t historical:-

    “My point, though, is that the way Jesus came to be remembered by those who *read* these Gospel accounts, and formed their impressions of Jesus from them, was based on these narratives that are not true to history. They may be religiously true or theologically true, but they aren’t historically true. It is in that sense, and only in that sense, that I am referring to them as false memories.People still today have false memories of Jesus based on what they have read in the Bible.” (Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-memory-book-false-memories-and-the-life-of-jesus/)

    So, stop putting your own preconceived ideas in the mouth of Ehrman. Ehrman plainly says here that the stories of Jesus in the Gospels are not historical (are fictions).

    Like

    • Yes, Ehrman doesent accept much of the gospesl as historical. I said that very clearly.

      But Specifically that Jesus was crucified that we’re talking bout here, Ehrman shows the Gospels are historically acurate preserve this fact.

      They didnt make up the fact the Jesus was crucified and Ehrman’s analusis shows its one of the things we know as historically accurate:

      “There are a few things we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus. For example: he was a Jewish preacher from rural Galilee who made a fateful trip to Jerusalem and was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate“.

      https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-crucifixion-as-king-of-the-jews/

      And this is the crushing consensus of scholaship.

      Stop pretending as if Ehrman doesnt believe there is good historical evidence for the crucifixion sbecofocally when he and all scholars agree that its historical and instead start citing all the NT scholars you claim that nelieve in the historical Jesus but not the crucifixion. Blease do.

      On the sbecific point of the crucifixion of Jesus Ehrman and virtually all scholarship is against you.

      You just want to accept what your brejudice tells you, that’s why you’re argumwnt is circular and unhistorical.

      Like

  20. @ Bashar

    “Here you reject the historical evidence and scholarly analysis by Ehrman and the crushing consensus of scholarship on the crucifixion.”

    Response:

    Where is the historical evidence which I supposeldly rejected after you admitted that there is no single independent historical evidence (primary historical source) for the crucifixion!

    Until you bring even a single primary (independent) historical evidence for the crucifixion, it remains just a fiction which you won’t expect me to believe.

    The reputed historian Kameron Searle says:-

    “A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all.” — Kameron Searle.

    We reject the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus because there is no single independent historical confirmation of the story just as the Holy Qur’an hinted at when it says “They didn’t kill him for certainly” (Qur’an 4:157). God Almighty speaks the truth.

    Like

    • And by that standard brove to me that Jesus existed, he was born to Mary, he made messianic claims, he preached the gospels etc.

      Stop quoting scholars that are against you and start quotin all the NT scholars that believe historical Jesus existed but dont believe in the crucifixion.

      You are just moving in circles accebting your preconceived prejudice and rejecting when your prekudice goes aginst it. Even Ijaz Ahmad admittwd this even if he was aggresivw and obnoxious about it.

      Like

      • @ Bashar,

        The discussion between us about the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus is long over after you admitted that there is no single independent historical confirmation for it.

        If you knew what lack of independent historical evidence means for any claimed historical event, you would have already thrown it in the towel.

        You are just repeating yourself that there is historical evidence for the crucifixion after you admitted there is none. And you repeat that there is consensus of scholars for the crucifixion when its obviously not true. But I realized you can’t help repeating these untruths which you might have picked up from your apologists.

        Its also not suprising for a Christian like you to think that all scholars in the world reached consensus that Jesus was crucified and hence you repeatedly asked me to tell you any scholar (Bible professor or historian) who never believes that the crucifixion is historical.

        In addition to Prof. G. A wells, let me cite few others here.

        Cont…

        Like

  21. @ Bashar,

    Dr. Hector Avalos is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, biblical scholar. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies degree in 1985 in the Harvard School of Divinity, and then he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University in 1991.

    Prof. Hector Avslos is not a mysticist since he believes in the possibility of the existence of Jesus. But he pointed out that the stories about Jesus in the Bible –virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion and resurrection – lack independent historical evidence. He was a devout Christian before he dumped Christianity after he studied the Bible well to find it specious.

    Let me cite a historian now. Dr. David Fitzgerald is a historian studying the historical Jesus. He was a devout Christian but his objective studies proved to him that Christianity is just groundless and thus he dumped it. He rejects even the existence of Jesus for the fact that there is no single independent historical confirmation for anything about the biblical Jesus.

    Dr. David Fitzgerald, award-winning historical scholar, and Dr. Valerie Terico a psychologist wrote:-

    “The Gospels are not corroborated by outside historians. Despite generations of apologists insisting Jesus is vouched for by plenty of historical sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, none of these hold up to close inspection….the Testimonium Flavanium merely repeats common Christian beliefs of the late first century, and even if it were 100% genuine would provide no evidence about where those beliefs came from. This same applies to other secular references to Jesus–they definitely attest to the existence of Christians and recount Christian beliefs at the time, but offer NO INDEPENDENT RECORD OF A HISTORICAL JESUS.”

    “In sum, while well-established historic figures like Alexander the Great are supported by multiple lines of evidence, in the case of Jesus we have only one line of evidence: the writings of (anonymous) believers involved in spreading the fledgling religion.” (Source: https://valerietarico.com/2017/04/13/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/)

    There are hundreds of other Bible scholars and historians who either believe in the existence of Jesus but reject the historicity of the crucifixion and other biblical accounts of Jesus or reject the historicity of Jesus altogether – all for the fact that there is actually no any primary historical evidence for these biblical accounts of Jesus.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Waziri.

    You still don’t seem to undetstand the fundamental issaue. You can question the historicity of the crucifixion on the grounds that its not mentioned in historical documents.

    But by that standard you have no evidence that Jesus existed, that he was born by Mary, the messianic claim, he preached the gospels etc.

    All points you accept because of your prejudice. Only the crucifixion you dont accept because it dowsnt fit your preconceived notions. That’s the circulaty of your argument.

    Even Ijaz Ahmad
    recognized this point, even if he was obnoxious and aggresive. You never adressed this boint and dont seem to understand it.

    Once again, you failed to produce a single NT scholar who believes in a historical Jesus and who disbelieve in the crucifixion.

    They all state the same there is no outside testimony from the time Jesus actually lived. For anything about him.

    You said: “There are many scholars of the New Testament as well as historians who never believed in the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus for lack of independent evidence.”
    Resurrection is not the question here.

    So its very simple:

    1. Produce the many NT scholars who says Jesus was historical but the crucifixion was not.

    2. Produce the historical evidence, by your own standards indenendent and from that time for Jesus, that he was born of Mary, that he had messianic claims, that he preached the injeel etc. If you again fail to produce this evidence you have proven that the only reason you accept all this but not that he was crucified is because it goes against your breconceived ideas.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: