Categories: Arabic, Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Blogging Theology Youtube, Christianity, Christology, Crucifixion, Dr Ali Ataie, Dr Bart Ehrman, God, Gospels, Hadith, History, Islam, Jesus, Jews, Judaism, Manuscripts, Recommended reading
Categories: Arabic, Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Blogging Theology Youtube, Christianity, Christology, Crucifixion, Dr Ali Ataie, Dr Bart Ehrman, God, Gospels, Hadith, History, Islam, Jesus, Jews, Judaism, Manuscripts, Recommended reading
Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. – John Dominic Crossan
(I’m surprised you didn’t ask him about this in your interview tbh)
Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”- Gerd Ludemann
We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE”–Robert J. Miller
It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution- Bart Erhman
Jesus was most definitely crucified- Reza Aslan
There’s *far* more consensus across all biblical scholarship that Jesus was really crucified than there is that John represents the Ipissma Verba of Jesus.
It’s sad to see this Chanel promoting such fringe views as scholarship.
What does the Qur’an say?
God willing, I am going to be decimating your boy Ali Ataie, another intellectual fraud, on Isaiah 53 today much like Jay Dyer obliterated your god and profit in his debate last night against Sheikh Asrar.
And we called you and your fellow heretic Sean Finnegan out to debate us either on our show or on yours. Email me if you grow some manliness (which, in light of your orientation may even be impossible for Allah to help you with) and accept our debate challenge.
Thank you for constantly giving us opportunities to decimate your satanic god and his immoral filthy profit for all to see. I will always be indebted to you.
@shamoun
Really? It’s better you grow your balls then go to San Diego to debate Sheikh Uthman and bring your 3 gods there including the devil spirit. Don’t just bark like a dog behind your computer.
The Quran certainly does not say Jesus was not crucified as you pointed out from Todd Lawson Surah 4:157 is debunking the Jewish claims that they are the ones who killed Jesus. We know from the New Testament that the Jews never killed Jesus or crucified him it was the Romans. The commentator who exegeted that passage as proof that Jesus was never crucified and someone took Jesus’ place instead is falsely attributed to Ibn Abbas but actually, it’s Al Kalbi. However, the original person who came with the substitution theory and the notion that Jesus was not crucified is actually unknown. As Dr. Ali clearly admitted that the word Tawaffa being mentioned in Surah 3:55, and a clearer verse that suggests that Jesus will die and be raised alive in Surah 19:19 along with the fact that surah 4:157 is talking about how the Jews failed to kill him or crucify him it is definitely plausible that Jesus was crucified according to Islam.
@Jun kim
Clearly you are one of them that Quran already mentioned it:
“Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions.”
Well Sam, if you want to respond to me respond to me properly, thank you. Paul asked what does the Quran say and I gave references unlike you that clearly suggest that Quran for sure never said that Jesus was not crucified or killed at all.
@yay125
Why do you think I didn’t respond properly? What did I quote? Where is that quote from?
@sam
I think yay125 is Ali Ataie, but I’m not sure.
@IamHere
Nope!
Clearly you are one of them that Quran already mentioned it:
“Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions.”
This is what you said yet I gave you references and evidence and you are saying I got no knowledge whatsoever and only making assumptions? Lmao, I gave you a proper context. Should I share you what Dr. Ali Ataie said himself or other reputable Islamic scholars on this issue? It seems you are just trolling.
“..This is what you said ..”
LOL..Did I say that? Do you know who say that?
I initially tried leaving the comment on your youtube video, but for some reason it wasn’t showing up. So I thought I leave my comment here on your blog, but it seems to be besieged by uncouth characters.
The meaning of “Mutawaffi” (‘take in full’) is discussed in the tafsir (exegesis) of verses 3:54-55 (page 76; Mariful Quran vol. 2 by Mufti Taqi Usmani): https://archive.org/details/English-MaarifulQuran/English-MaarifulQuran-MuftiShafiUsmaniRA-Vol-2/page/n72/mode/1up
I further recommend the tafsir of 4: 157-158 (page 622).
Although the substitutional hypothesis is widely accepted by Muslim scholars from the earliest times, including explanations of the verse from the famous companion Ibn Abbas Ra, who seemed to have understood it as substitutional, which suggests to me this was the idea held by the companions closest to the Prophet PBUH.
Regardless, I can understand the swooning hypothesis. But the “rapture hypothesis” that is proposed by Ustadh Ali and similarly written about by various recent Orientalist scholars is really stretching the verses meanings to propose this hypothesis. E.g. one question comes to my mind, if indeed Jesus PBUH is on the cross and before his physical flesh dies, Allah intervenes and there is a rapture of his soul, how is that different from death? Because in death everyone’s soul depart the body and all of this is by the will of Allah (as in Allah’s intervention). And if indeed he died on the cross and yet Allah saying they did not kill him nor crucify him sounds like one of these Obi Wan Kenobi moment – “from a certain point of view” – type of verbal gymnastics. No one can do anything to anyone except by the will of Allah.
what next?! Inviting a Jesus mythicist to promote their baseless unscholarly conspiracy theories?
What does the Birmingham manuscript prove? It is not even a full Koran as I understand.
Wasn’t it written on vellum, which is supposed to last longer than papyrus anyway? Carbon dating would indicate how old that parchment was but cannot date what was written on it with any certainty.
It seems to me that Islam had a problem fitting the crucifixion of Jesus, which it could not deny as historic fact, in to the paradigm of the invincible judging islamic messenger who never lost a conflict and always sent the unbelievers packing with their tails between their legs.
But such a desperate and implausible solution?
And PW found someone else to confirm his bias, what a surprise, lol.
The problem is not Islam but Christians because they need Jesus dies on the cross to pay for their sin.
I don’t need Jesus to be died on the cross for my sin, I just ask and pray to God directly, that what Jesus teaches us in The Quran.
And yet for some strange reason, Muhammad sought to seek refuge from Mary and Jesus which these two were never touched by Satan according to Sahih Al-Bukhari.
Sahih-Al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641: Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (3.36)
Why would your prophet seek refuge to Mary and Jesus, why not just seek refuge to Allah instead? Are you going to deny this Sahih Hadith which has no problem in the chain of narration at all?
Are you a Muslim or a Christian? Do you think Muhammad pbuh would do something against Quran? Absolutely no!
if the verse in the Hadith is against The Quran then we can deny that Hadith. Muslims don’t seek refugee to human or to any other than Allah.
You misinterpret that hadith, prophet Muhammad pbuh actually recited Quran 3:36.
I mean Abu Huraira recited Quran 3:36
So what is the proper interpretation unlike you I am giving you an actual reference to one of your most trusted sources, if this is a reference to 3:36 then obviously it is true that Muhammad sought refuge to Jesus and Mary. I mean Jesus is called the spirit of Allah, the speech of Allah, pure and sinless (surah 19:19) and more.
Oh man, what is your trusted sources? The Quran is the #1 trusted source for Muslim.
Let see Quran 3:36:
“And when she delivered her, she said, “My Lord, I have delivered a female,” and God was well aware of what she has delivered, “and the male is not like the female, and I have named her Mary, and have commended her and her descendants to Your protection, from Satan the outcast.”
Who is “Your” in “Your protection”?
haha my bad the word your is God my apologies but my other argument that I made still stands.
Good, now you learn something.
The Todd Lawson theory shows how confusing the Qur’an actually is.
Todd Lawson on Surah 4:157 – plays pretzels with the text & tries to rescue the Qur’an from embarrassment according to established history. But it also exposes the internal contradictions in the Qur’an that 4:157 contradicts 3:55 and 19:33.
“is debunking the Jewish claims that they are the ones who killed Jesus. We know from the New Testament that the Jews never killed Jesus or crucified him it was the Romans.”
New Testament – Peter said:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
Acts 2:22-24
The Jewish leadership and Jewish crowds manipulated and instigated and pressured Pilate and the Romans to do the deed and the NT says many times that they murdered Jesus.
The Todd Lawson theory is nuked.
Here we go, lol… Shamoun the 3 god worshipping polytheist has decided to pass by
“OUCH!!!” is what your ex- wife screamed when her Big Boy Hubby mounted her in ways you could not do lol……..
You idiot Shamoun….
I watched your pathetic upload and its just more typical anti- Christ eisegesis interpretations of the OT that reflect you truly are a clown who worships counterfeit gods …..
Why don’t you share with your viewers about those Christians who unsubscribed to your channel and become Muslim LOl…:) lol…. you know Shamoun you know it you know LOl…
Efdawah stream is on tonight. If you truly believe what you utter, then you’ll show up at this livestream and many more after that. If 95% of your life is bragging but never man enough to go on these livestreams, then what good are you and your pagan cult? They have practically been begging you, your girlfriend ibn Hammer and Cpuss te come on and you NEVER came on even once. And you are the very people that brag your ass off day after day how you’re willing to come on to any stream and have debate with anyone. You even said you are willing to go and debate on someone’s channel while they control the mute button. But when these guys invite you, you run like the pussy that you are.
Be a lan for ONCE in your filthy, pagan life. We’re all waiting. But who am I kidding. We all know you’ll be a no show. Pathetic.
Your an Idiot 3 god worship polytheist Shamoun, you have self inflicted your woes unto you
The God Jesus worshipped has nothing to do with your counterfeit tri-gods lol….
Here you go Shamoun, more woes for you and your false gods you worship
Shamoun, your begin here in response to your hilarious bogus video upload lol.. idiot
Wrong Shamoun lol…. The pronouns throughout Isaiah 52:13-15 to 53:1-12 are about “He” and “Him” – identified as the Nation of Israel, His Servant as a singular individual
The following article investigates the various pronouns used throughout Isaiah, we can see how the use of the masculine singular is actually appropriate when referring to “My Servant” . It also clarifies the use of a plural pronoun within the text of Isaiah 53 as well as the plural form of the word “death”.
From a historical/literary context perspective, learn and understand why the Pronouns throughout 52:13-15 to 53:1-12 do not identify a dying messiah deity would suffer for the sins of others and then be raised from the dead, neither a messiah that would share the same essence of divinity with YHWH to form a triune idol god Shamounny lol.. Enjoy 🙂
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs5sCfuuzrAhX0Q3wKHT4jA6sQFjAHegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehebrewcafe.com%2Farticles%2Fisaiah_52-54.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0A348k_FO90fc3OPRa79gQ
More woes for Shamoun continue
Shamoun ask’s Isaiah 53: What Did The Rabbis Say?
Well here you go Shamoun more destruction for you and your bogus presumptions lol 🙂
Isaiah 53: What Did The Rabbis Say?
Maybe you weren’t told, but many ancient rabbinic sources understood Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel
There is NO instance where we see that a Messiah deity sharing the same essence of divinity with YHWH who is to die for the sins of people and be raised up again based on Isaiah 53. When we look at the facts, it is clear that the missionary claims with regards to Rabbinic belief are unsubstantiated.
http://www.judaismsanswer.com/Isaiah53-PostRashiRabbis.htm
http://www.judaismsanswer.com/AlSheich.htm
http://www.judaismsanswer.com/RashiandIsaiah53.htm
http://www.judaismsanswer.com/Isaiah53TalmudMidrash.htm
Here are references from some of them:
Mikros Gadolos:
Rabbi Yosef Kara[6]: French exegete who lived at the time of Rashi or slightly before that. He authored a commentary on Nach. He explains Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel.
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra[7]: 12th century Spanish Rabbi, author of a commentary on the Tenach and various works on grammar and other subjects. Ibn Ezra explains Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel.
Rabbi David Kimchi[8]: Also known as the RaDaK, lived in the 13th century and wrote an important commentary on the Tenach and works on grammar. Radak explains Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel.
Rabbi Yechiel Hillel ben David[9]: 18th century Rabbi and author of the commentaries on the Nach called Metzudos Dovid, and Metzudos Tzion. The former is an explanation of the text and the later deals with issues of grammar and word meaning. He explains Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel
Rabbi Meir Leibish Malbim[10]: 19th century Rabbi who wrote a commentary on most of Nach. His commentaries include explanations of the words and their grammar and a simple commentary on the meaning of the text. He explains Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel.
Rabbi Jacob bar Reuben[15]: This is taken from his important polemical work called Wars of the Lord, written in 1170. This work had a lot of influence in later generations when Jews were forced into debates with Christians. This was written against a Christian opponent to defend Judaism. He argues that Isaiah 53 does not apply to Jesus, but that it refers to Israel.
Rabbi Yeshaya m’Trani[16]: 13th century Rabbi. This is from his commentary on Isaiah where he says Isaiah 53 is about Israel.
Nizzahon Vetus[17]: According to Dr. David Berger[18] this is a collection of Polemic arguments from Ashkenaz[19] dating from the 12th and 13th century. They were collected for use in the forced debates. It argues that Isaiah 53 is about Israel.
Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Shaprut[20]: 14th century Spanish talmud scholar and philosopher. He, like many other Rabbis in Spain was involved in debates with Christians[21]. This comes from a work written about them. He explains how it applies to Israel.
Rabbi Moshe Cohen of Tordesilla[22]: 14th century Spanish Rabbi and author of the work Ezer Emunah (Aid to the Faith) which defends Judaism against Christian attacks. It is based on a number of debates he was involved in. He applies this passage to Israel.
Rabbi Shlomo Astruc[23]: 14th century Spanish rabbi and author of Midrashai HaTorah. Sometimes he is called En Shlomo Astruc. According to the Chida ‘En’ was a title for a great person. His commentary is complex: 52:13 is about the Messiah; 52:14 Israel; 52:15 both, the rest is about Israel’s suffering.
Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Muhlhausen[24]: 15th century Rabbi. This entry comes from his work Nizzahon which defends Judaism against both Christians and Karaites. The commentary is polemical and contends Isaiah 53 is about Israel.
Rabbi Avraham Farisol[25]: 16th century Rabbi from Avignon. Author of a polemical work called Shield of Avraham which is a debate with Christians. He explains this passage as a reference to Israel.
Rabbi Meir Aramah[26]: Wrote a commentary in Isaiah called Urim v’Tummim. This chapter is explained with regards to Israel in exile.
Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac de Marini[29]: Rabbi in Padua in the end of the 17th century. He authored a work called Tikkun Olam on Isaiah. He explains it with regards to Israel.
Rabbi Menasha ben Yisroel[30]: 17th century Rabbi from Amsterdam. He was the author of many works and had his own printing press. This entry is a polemical text where he answers questions about the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 as being Israel.
http://www.judaismsanswer.com/
🙂 More woes for you Shamoun and your counterfeit tri-gods you worship 🙂
The following two articles subjects the Fourth Servant Song to a critical. in-depth analysis in which the Jewish interpretation of “Isaiah 53” is measured against a combination of the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the historical record. The analysis employs a well-known and widely used methodology from the domain of research and discovery, the Scientific Method, which has been adapted and applied to the entire process of validation. In a subsequent essay, the Christian interpretation will be subjected to a similar process.
1st article: http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf
Hypothesis: Israel is the servant in the Fourth Servant Song
Conclusion: The servant in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song is (the righteous
remnant of) Israel.
2nd article: http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53CP.pdf
New Hypothesis: The Messiah is the servant in “Isaiah 53”
Conclusion: The Christian interpretation of “Isaiah 53” is false, since neither the Messiah nor Jesus can be identified as the entity being referred to as “My servant”.
Overall research summary
Final Conclusion for Parts I & II: The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (“Isaiah 53”) that Israel is the identity of the entity being referred to as “My servant” is correct.
🙂 Shamoun now go crawl under a rock and worship your anti-Christ tri-gods in shame lol
More woes Shamoun hahahah lol Just like you pagan Shamoun, even your anti-christ church father Origen acknowledged in his day that the consensus of the Jews regarding Isaiah 53 was viewed as the nation of Israel identified as the Servant of the Lord that “bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.” 🙂
lol.. THANK YOU SHAMOUN 🙂 LOL… Please continue to post in here Shamoun, you are directing your followers to visit Paul’s page and channel here where your hilarious video’s are refuted and demolished lol.. more self-inflicted woes for Shamoun…..
Our posts here just absolutely annihilated your Isaiah 53 what did the Rabbi’s say? LOL>…
Idiot …
Fatty, I BEG you: call in on the stream today. Your nightmare Sheikh Uthman will be there too. Let’s test if your microscopic testicles can give you enough manhood to call in. I dear you fatty. Call in you filthy, fat virmin, pagan blob and see what happens. We’ll see whether you’ll rise from the dead after three days and three nights, something your diaper god couldn’t do.
Foolish Shamoun Coward, why don’t you let people post comments on your bogus wordpress to refute your stupid, hilarious articles?
Pass this on to that fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gPaUHsKAYI&t=2s
And instead of hiding tell him I want to join your discussion to see how well this fraud does when I decimate his lies and objections. Tell him to man up and face me. Otherwise, I may have to go to Zaytuna and challenge him in front of his students to expose this fraud for all to see.
I wanna see you debate your ex-wife.
Yeah, go to Zaytuna, bring your crew then go to San Diego to debate with Sheik Uthman. I want to see how you grow your balls.
Shamoun your the 3 god worship fraud you polytheist! You still have the nerve to show up here after we decimated your pathetic lies and objections on Isa 53? lol….. I dare you to go to Zaytuna and do that Shamouny lol… Dr. Ali Ataie will expose your falsehood inshaAllah and your tri-god idol you worship lol…
Keep posting in here Shamouny, cos I know your misguided followers will see the truth on this blog and realize your falsehood expose you lol…
Salam, this is a really good discussion Paul. Thanks for hosting him. Ataie’s views on the bible seem to have tended back to more normative Muslim views since I last heard from him. Though admittedly I liked the resurrection affirming theory he spoke about in earlier videos, he makes a lot of great points that give me pause.
Would be great to see him as a regular guest.
Confirmed future episodes on Blogging Theology:
On Friday, August 6th Profesor Ali Ataie will discuss what the Qur’an says about the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the Bible and then discuss Deuteronomy 18:18 – the prophet like Moses.
A future broadcast will tackle Isaiah 42, and we will go from there…
The only clear takeaways from Surah 5 verses 157-58 of the Quran are that the Jews failed to kill Jesus and failed to “crucify” him though it appeared to them they succeeded. Yet they still had some doubt on whether they succeeded in killing and crucifying him, have no certain knowledge on the matter and that God raised him onto himself.
Now if we take the reference to the denial that they crucified him to mean they didnt kill him via crucifixion (so an emphasis point, a denial he was debased in death as death via crucifixion in late antiquity was seen as debasement) then a plausible reading of the verses that seeks harmony with the gospels is that it wasnt the crucifixion that caused his death but rather Jesus yielding his spirit to God and God taking his soul up to heaven prior to a “natural” death due to injury. This is supported by another verse in the Quran which says God will cause Jesus to die and raise him onto himself (assumed by most to mean at the end of times but the verse doesn’t specify this). This squares up well with the Gospel accounts that suggest Jesus yielded his spirit to God and has Pontius Pilate marvelling at his quick death, indicating an “unnatural” death had occured there.
Thus on this reading the explicit Quranic account is not undermined: The boastful Jews thought they had succeeded in killing him but in fact failed to do so as they were not the cause of his death (the literal definition of killing). Yet this was not visible to them so they assumed he died a “natural” death via crucifixion and therefore had succeeded in killing him. In reality his soul ascended to heaven via his own volition.
With respect to the Jews doubting they had succeeded, a number of points need to be made on plausible readings. First, perhaps they were suffering from cognitive dissonance between what their eyes saw (a dead Jesus via crucifixion) and how quickly he seemed to die (similar to Pontius Pilate). Second, according to Islamic doctrine , the Jews knew Jesus was their Messiah from God (they call him the Messiah, the messenger of Allah in this verse). Perhaps they harboured lingering doubts that they in fact succeeded in killing such a prominent divinely selected figure (cue Old Testament prophecies on the Messiah). And perhaps they heard chatter he was seen alive sometime after. Allahu A’lam.
With respect to Jesus being raised from the dead, the Quran makes no mention of this, either in affirmation or rejection so it cannot be categorically said to be false (we can speculate on why it would be omitted). What it does say is that God countered the Jewish attempt at killing him by raising him unto himself. This could be both literal (raising to heaven, also consistent with some gospel accounts) and metaphorical (Jesus status was elevated as Imam Al Razi states). This reading in no way refutes that he yielded his spirit to the heavens and was reserructed 3 days later. Omission=/= contradiction.
In sum, If we read the two verses in the context of the preceding verses, they are clearly a polemical attack on the rebellious Jews who boasted that they had once again controverted the divine by killing their Messiah from him. The point is that they failed at doing so and Jesus was elavated in rank and to heaven. Detailed explanation on *how* they failed and all the details that followed (including whether Jesus in fact had died via other means) is not the focus here. That regardless of what happened, Jesus and ultimately God won (and in the Sunnah Jesus will return victorious) and the rebellious Jews lost. (The reading that Jesus yielded his spirit and God seized it is consistent with this) Is this not the ultimate message of verses 157-158? That they planned and Allah Planned and Allah is the best of planners?