Recently Muslim apologist Adnan Rashid debated Samuel Green on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. My goal is not to review the debate but instead to point out an argument that the Muslims need to stop using for their own sake. They’ve been using this argument uncritically and I’m going to show why it has to be retired.
The 2nd century figure Basilides denied the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ and said that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead. Adnan Rashid brought this up. I’ve seen Basilides referenced by other Muslim apologists before. While Muslims agree with this one belief, they should not quote him as he fulfills the definition of someone who commits shirk better than any Nicene Trinitarian ever could.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a book called Against Heresies. In Book 1, Chapter 24 we read:
He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.
Sounds like a good Muslim to me, doesn’t he? Earlier in this chapter, St. Irenaeus talks about the beliefs of Basilides. He writes:
He sets forth that Nous was first born of the unborn father, that from him, again, was born Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, and from Dynamis and Sophia the powers, and principalities, and angels, whom he also calls the first; and that by them the first heaven was made. Then other powers, being formed by emanation from these, crated another heaven similar to the first; and in like manner, when others, again, had been formed by emanation from them, corresponding exactly to those above them, these, too, framed another third heaven; and then from this third, in downward order, there was a fourth succession of descendants; and so on, after the same fashion, they declare that more and more principalities and angels were formed, and three hundred and sixty-five heavens. Wherefore the year contains the same number of days in conformity with the number of the heavens.
Do the Muslims believe in 365 heavens? The Quran says that there are seven heavens. Remember in the beginning of this quote, he talks about angels. It’s about to get even better. St. Irenaeus continues.
Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world.
After this quote, he goes on to talk about the supposed swap with Simon of Cyrene.
So the chief of the angels in the lowest heaven is the God of the Jews. Did Adnan Rashid really examine this before quoting him multiple times in this debate? It’s funny that if a Christian quotes St. Paul, the Muslim will say that he’s not an authority since he departed from the teachings of Christ. What about Basilides? St. Paul is legions closer to Christ in terms of teachings. Even a Muslim would have to agree with this after actually reading St. Irenaeus. In fact, St. Paul is even closer to Muhammad than Basilides. Basilides is an absolute wack.
Why do the Muslims make a big deal about this absolute heretic and idolater? Well, because of the whole Simon of Cyrene swap theory. Basilides can’t be trusted. I hope that Muslims will read this and decide to bury this argument.
On another note, the Traditional Catholic website OnePeterFive carried another one of my articles.
Ah, it’s just standard Muslim usage of only what suits their argument, ignoring everything else.
James White always takes issue with this, saying that the very same liberal scholars they quote on the unreliability of the Bible would dismiss the Quran in a heartbeat!
My note however: His objection is valid only if those scholars would dismiss the Quran using the same objective standards they use to dismiss the Bible. For example, just because someone does not believe the Quran to be historical does not necessarily mean he believes the Bible to be ahistorical too!
I call this the ‘Hitler believed London was in England’ fallacy – just because Hitler believed it, does not mean it is automatically false.
Do you believe The Word(Jesus) was God?
Yes I do.