The Crucifixion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ
I didn’t want to do a review of the debate between Adnan Rashid and Samuel Green on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ but this general overview will cover a lot of material in that debate. The crucifixion has always been a sticky point for Muslims. The Quran denies it but only in one place. There are multiple first century sources of the crucifixion of Jesus but Muslims go for the one mysterious statement in the Quran six centuries after the event.
There is a very consistent theme in what the Muslims who oppose this do. On this topic and several others, there is a very clear theme that I am beginning to see in the Muslims. This theme could be applied to Islamic apologetics in general. Basically, the Christians are interpreting the evidence and Muslims are trying to get around it.
There are clear and unambiguous statements of the death of Christ throughout the New Testament. Muslims will take some esoteric passages and try to say that there is a hidden tradition that existed and that the Gospel writer is trying to bury to promote the Pauline agenda. It comes out in different forms but that’s basically the argument. Often Basilides will be quoted but I hope that we as apologists make his blasphemy known. We need to brush up on the writings of St. Irenaeus.
Christians in the early years of the Church didn’t come up with what they believe by accident. They went and looked to their Scriptures and the Traditions which would have lined up with them. The idea of Jesus dying on the cross was something that Christians always followed. The fact that there was a grand conspiracy to invent this event is quite humorous.
Muslims like to attack people like Jay Smith for promoting the theory that Petra was the original Mecca. I personally have mixed feelings about that theory. I simply don’t think there is enough evidence to know either way since Muslims have no early information about Muhammad.
I’ll simply point out that the theory that Petra is the original Mecca has far more evidence going for it than the theory that there was an early tradition where Jesus was not crucified. Unlike the Muslims, Christians have early evidence for their central religious figure. The whole reason that the Mecca-Petra theory exists is because of the huge gap in the chronological evidence between Muhammad and the documents about him.
The earliest Christian documents aren’t their evidence. They have to go to modern anti-supernaturalist “scholars” and make them the authority over first century evidence. Of course, when these “scholars” say anything that contradicts Islam, they all of a sudden seem to lose authority. Adnan Rashid admitted in the debate Muslims believe as they do because of the Quran.
I suppose Muslim apologists need to look at Matthew Vines. He argues in the same way that they do. His final authority lies elsewhere so he has to get around the evidence. I’m sure that Muslim apologists will admit that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that Matthew Vines is simply trying to get around the evidence. It’s pretty bad after all. I wonder if Matthew Vines thinks that Adnan Rashid’s arguments against the crucifixion are ridiculous and are simply an attempt to get around clear evidence. I suppose Vines and Rashid have something in common. Maybe they can go out for a pint one day and chat. Maybe Rashid could have an orange juice.
All these disagreements are to do with the Truth.
The big question: “Why do Muslims believe in the Koran?”
Another: “Why do Muslims believe what Mohammed had to say?”
If they can prove that they have sound reasons for believing that Mohammed was telling the truth about his claim to be a prophet, and sound reasons for believing that the Koran is truly what it claims to be (and they are mighty claims indeed), then we might have a good reason to listen to their opinions on matters religious.
(N.B. By sound reasons I don’t mean that they will otherwise be ostracised, or punished by their fellows.)
Hi Christopher,
The second question has to do with the first one. Why do Muslims believe in Muhammad and what he had to say? Because he revealed the Quran.
I mean, most modern Muslims don’t know much about what Muhammad said because they haven’t studied the Hadith. I know a devout Muslim. I asked him how much stock does he put in them. He says that he has doubts about the method but if he tells other Muslims this, they’ll say he’s a heretic. It’s hard to test the method because no other civilization in the world has used this method before.
Another Muslim girl I talked to told me that there are so many hadiths and some are authentic and some are weak that she’s not an expert so she just sticks to reading the Quran.
What I would like to see is a lecture on how a Hadith is reliable. If it’s not reliable, we don’t know what Muhammad said.
God bless,
Allan
Let me recount an experience I had regarding truth, the Bible, and Harry Potter.
Now perhaps you have heard the (rather mocking) argument before: “Sure the Bible gets some historical and geographical details correct, but so does Harry Potter – so does that prove Harry Potter is true?”
I struggled to find a way to fundamentally differentiate the two, until asking around on Reddit for solutions brought me to the realization – on a fundamental level, there is NO immediate ‘finger-snap-aha!’ difference.
Every story – be it the Bible’s account, Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, whatever – must be weighed an examined in the same objective manner, using the same fair scales. One or two points won’t do (e.g. Pilate was a procurator, or London is in England)… ALL verifiable claims must be weighed.
A better comparison would actually be the Bible and the Quran – both contain checkable claims about history, archaeology, geography etc, and both claim to contain the (mutually conflicting) truth. In many cases, they make rival or differing claims about the same verifiable events such as the Crucifixion.
And it is by this criteria – verifiable facts – that the Bible far outweighs every other religious text. Verifiable facts is an objective way to argue for the truth of the Biblical claims over any other belief system.
It is the inverse of John 3:12 – if the Bible tells us about earthly matters that we CAN check, investigate, prove true and thus believe… Then we can also believe the Bible on heavenly matters we cannot directly prove, such as the nature of God and salvation.
(And John 3:12 also applies to the Quran – there are so many earthly matters it gets absolutely wrong, why should I believe anything it says about heavenly matters?)