Ally/Licona Debate Cross-Examination

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon last time I saw it was about 112 degrees something like that 114

Oh I'm looking forward to riding through that on my motorcycle Yeah, but it was like 102 104 on the way in and it was just you have to put the visor down because the air hurts

I mean it literally literally hurts any exposed skin It doesn't doesn't doesn't like that very much at all.

So It's it's a warm one here, but it's a warm one all over the place actually.

So We aren't complaining too much about it. But like I said the illustrations about Okay, it's a dry blast furnace it's a dry blast furnace for the moment, but did you notice the water vapor map?

It's here. It comes here comes the monsoon and They're even saying a slight chance of showers and when was last time rained

April? I think it was sometime in April wasn't it's been forever. It is really dry and Really dry and dusty and I think the folks in Texas would be happy to send the rain our direction

I think they'd find that to be perfectly acceptable and so Feel sorry for the folks over there watching watching what's going on there we have one of our channel regulars who is watching a lake lap at his back porch at the moment and So we're hoping that it doesn't go any farther than that But obviously it has gone farther for other folks.

And so we pray for those folks as well I hope you saw the links. I mentioned this last time about the book of Abraham I found the

I put up the YouTube link. There's actually like four or five. I think Links to the full length.

I think it's 58 minute video and of course, you know, you're watching video on the Internet So the quality isn't you know, necessarily the best

Oh Rich is gonna see the foot marks on the wall that a certain person left a little bit later on Those things don't handle feet too well, do they?

Okay, well Rich's got a strange look on his face, but that's okay

That's that's what happens when you're roughhoused in the office, I guess but anyhow Hey, it's summertime you gotta gotta you know kids do things during the summer and old people do things during the summer, too.

Anyway You can get the DVD and I would I would show this

DVD, you know If you've got like a Wednesday night Bible study type thing or a Sunday night or some type of Christian training thing or whatever

That would be an excellent Excellent one to obtain I think because it doesn't a very very good job

Doesn't spend too much time on the likes of John Gee and Carrie shirts and Hugh Nibley Because there just isn't a whole lot of reason to I mean the the excuses that they make well, we actually haven't found the papyri from which the

Book of Abraham was translated or I love the new one It's been over not overly new

But I like the real scholarly one that the book of Abraham is actually just a direct divine revelation

That was it was just prompted By the reading of the Egyptian papyri that he really couldn't actually read anyways

But it was just the symbols and the pictures that prompted the divine revelation

I'm sorry, but you know if Smith hadn't written his diary, you know, maybe they get away with stuff like that.

But If there wasn't that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar that corresponds directly to what we got then maybe you might get away with it too, but again excellent illustration of just the level of desperation that people will go to in defense of falsehood and The book of Abraham is certainly one of those those falsehoods

So don't forget to pick up that link and for those of you listening by archive that would link would have been put up Two days ago approximately so that would have been is the 3rd of the 4th of July 2007

You can go to the archives and who knows if that YouTube video will still be there a few years down the road that is one of the problems and looking at old archives is

URLs it amazes me when people write to me Hey, I found an article of yours from two years ago and the links are broken

You should you should fix it Just like oh, yeah

That's what I'm gonna spend the rest like my life doing going back over the archives every day are all the links still there

Oh one's broken. I better go find it. Oh My it's called

Google That's exactly right Google and AltaVista and Yahoo and all that stuff is exactly what you need and you know what if it's gone

It's gone. You should have read it when it was new All I can guarantee you is that the the the URL was correct at the moment

I posted it if it's not correct ten minutes later. That is beyond my control. Okay I've moved on from there.

So that's just sort of how The internet works eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we didn't get back to the discussion of The the debate one of the reasons

I Was looking at a rather important portion of the the

Quran Which is surah 3 ayah 55 now notice when

I read This this section What it says in the

Assad a Translation we have these words. Lo God said

Oh Jesus verily I shall cause thee to die and Shall exalt thee unto me and cleanse thee of the presence of those who are bent on denying the truth

And I shall place those who follow thee far above those who are bent on denying the truth Under the

Day of Resurrection in the end unto me you all must return I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were want to differ now notice that phrase

Verily I shall cause thee to die now the Malik translation says

Allah said Oh Isa. I am going to recall you from your mission and Raise you up to myself

Now compare the two I shall cause thee to die and shall exalt thee unto me

I Am going to recall you from your mission and raise you up to myself Hmm how about the picked all translation?

when Allah said Oh Jesus lo I am gathering thee and Causing thee to ascend unto me

So we have die Recall you from your mission gathering thee and we have exalt the end to me raise you to myself and Causing thee to ascend unto me

So far none of them are actually saying the same thing you might be able to try to put them all together

But it's gonna be a bit of stretch and the use of folly translation, which is what many of you have in the audience

Allah said Oh Jesus. I will take thee and raise thee to myself Now is that is that Resurrection is that Raising before death is it death?

I will cause thee to die or I will gather thee or I will bring you in from your

I mean There is a lot of differing interpretations and to be honest with you The text and this is one of the major problems with the

Quran when the Quran is so dependent upon external sources for interpretation

I Specifically the the traditions the Hadith Then when the

Hadith don't give you or can possibly give you contradictory understandings of the same concept

There's really no way of finding out which one's which now Some of these translations

I think are clearly influenced by Those traditions. In fact, I can hardly think of any translations that are not but still

It's a big question because did Jesus die or was he raised up to Allah? That's that's one of the issues that sort of comes up in the debate as we have been

Listening to it as as well are people making fun of the accent that I was that I was using there

You're making fun of it They're making fun of you and me. Oh, okay. All right.

Did they think that that was meant to be a serious accent or something? They seem to think that we use southern accents and I was pointing out that it's

Western Western yeah. Oh, I wasn't really much anything. It was just somebody who's who doesn't know how to use the computer and Thinks that I'm supposed to be running around fixing all the links and stuff.

That's four years old. Yeah, that's all it is it's I don't know what this is just sort of a some it's sort of a

NASCAR person, you know, if Arizona if people in the south make fun of Arizonans with an

Arizona accent, there is no Arizona accent. That's a problem Well sort of nah, come on not in Phoenix anyways

There's not in Phoenix But the accent here is just it's just been wiped out because everyone's those of us who grew up in other places of Arizona Do you have one?

You grew up in a place. Well, never mind Let's get back to the important things here

Let's get back to the debate some of you it's been so long you won't even remember what the debate was about but we are currently listening to the exchange between Shabir Ali and Michael Icona and we've noted that I've stopped a couple times and I said

Mike yo, Mike jump in here, dude I Think honestly there's there tends to be a hesitation on the part of many people when debating a

Muslim in a non -muslim environment to jump in and and say what needs to be said and Of course

I can tell if you listen to the moderator this thing. It's like man Prozac City and I just It's just really let's be really mellow and can we move on to something else type of thing?

and and so I think the whole venue may have Added to that but but Shabir has been getting the lion's share of the time here and when he's supposed to be asking questions he's actually making a lot of statements stuff like that and That's sort of where we were and we're getting fairly close.

I believe to the place where Some interesting stuff is said concerning the nature of scholarship.

So let's go ahead and and pick up and you mentioned some of them Yes, they're only in the gospel according to John not to deny that nails were used in crucifixion

But to say that Jesus was actually nailed to the cross This is something that the gospel writers wrote because they thought that is how you tell about a crucifixion

Now now stop right there. Now. Listen to what's being said here This is the exact same kind of reverse engineering concept and idea that is

Rejected by Shabir Ali when someone tries to use it on the Quran But now all of a sudden and he doesn't say well, you know, it's possible that maybe if we take the most destructive critical view of the

New Testament that what you have in Matthew Mark and Luke is Not people who had any direct access to an actual crucifixion.

They're just basically making this up and They're they're telling a fiction and this is how it would have been and how do you substantiate this?

and why do you take such a such a you know, I just don't find anything outside of the necessity of defending

Islam the necessity of defending the the the errors that Muhammad made Historically because he just didn't know what he was talking about He did not have historical connection to what happened with Jesus and and he didn't have access in New Testament so like that he was going on second third fourth fifth hand information and Outside of the necessity to have to defend him.

There certainly is nothing in the text of New Testament Nothing in history that requires this kind of radical skeptic skepticism concerning the nature of the

New Testament text it just it just doesn't I But crucifixion did not necessarily involve nailing one could have been tied as well and now why is he saying that well because if if nails are used you've got you know, a lot of blood loss there and and The he's trying to make it sound like well,

I guess we really don't know that Jesus died Just because every single historical document that it relates to it

We just fictionalize all them just because they all say that we just dismiss that but we don't know that she is died

He might have just been tied to the cross. This is the point where where like cone is gonna Almost said nail him and that would be a really bad thing to say at that point

But he's gonna he's gonna just demonstrate that at this point Should be really lost it.

I mean what he says here the sources use I've been I've had one of the sources that Shabir uses

Called Jesus and his world. I've had it sitting here in the studio on On on my desk waiting for this sectionist that this debate for at least two months

And I think we might finally get there today Who knows what is that Gibson in order to have the nail go in the palm?

Which is traditionally how it is shown had to also had the arms tied and notice that the other two who were

Condemned to be crucified that they had their arms tied to the crossbar And it was possible to raise a person to the cross and have his arms tied and he did

Good reason not to use the passion movie as a source of history not have to be nailed

So maybe Jesus was nailed But to say that he was necessarily nailed because John says so is really to Give us more to imagine about the breaking of the legs again

This is doubted by historical scholars because they look at John putting this in in place And they say that John has written this in order to prove the

Old Testament scripture to be true Not just just a quick quiz here Especially if you've been listening to the dividing line for a long time

Who said exactly? The same thing and We were reviewing this person's teachings and they said the exact same thing that that Fulfillment of prophecy is actually just the wishful thinking of the writers.

They're ransacking the Old Testament Looking for things that connect to Jesus and they will make up stories about Jesus to quote -unquote fulfill these prophecies the idea and and at least this guy

Who I'm referring to? because of his worldview At least we can understand how from a presuppositional perspective he comes up with that there is no reason

For Shabir to come up with this at all None because his worldview does not preclude prophecy.

In fact, he's going to try to use prophecy to defend the Quran So why in the world would you assume in?

regards to the Apostles That they're in essence making things up to fulfill

Old Testament prophecies Why would you do that? Are you consistent and assume that Muhammad and that the writing the writers the the collectors of Hadith traditions?

Oh, we're making stuff up just to fulfill prophecy in there and isn't that just as equally valid to do with the

Quran? Without coming up with any reason for it. You would think that it would be and if you are if you are are wondering

I was referring of course John Dominic Rawson John Dominic Rawson co -founder the

Jesus seminar Said exactly the same thing that all these there's there's no fulfilled prophecy

That all these prophecies about the breaking of the legs that all of that in in other words think about it

The idea of liberal theology and that's the theology that's being utilized with Shabir here the

The whole concept is Since there can't be prophecy then there isn't and when you encounter it that must mean the person who is writing is a liar

Okay, so this the deck is stacked against you presupposition Remember the question that I asked

John Dominic Ross at the beginning the cross -examination Is there any kind of data whatsoever?

Is there any kind any means whatsoever? To that could convince you that a miracle took place in The first century and his response was no

No So it's it's presupposition Lee taken from the start. These things cannot be what they claim to be therefore they must be something else and That is the exact same thing that should be released doing but he has no reason to do it.

He's not a naturalistic materialist It's just Clear inconsistency that I think people have seen as a result of this debate.

You see John has done what Gibson has done What they have done is that they look at and they see what should have happened to Jesus if we read the

Old Testament, right? So Gibson reads in the Old Testament that the Son of God will bruise the head of the serpent

And what does he do? He brings the serpent into the garden of Gethsemane. So Jesus crushes the head of the serpent Where is that in the

Gospels? Gibson has put that in the movie because he thinks that is how it should have been because it was prophesied in a similar way

Scholars have found that the four gospel writers have written things into the Gospels about Jesus not because this now

Did you catch that scholars have found no? Scholars have hypothesized if I said scholars have found that Muhammad did not write the

Quran. He would have a fit If I said scholars have found that there it's questionable whether Muhammad even existed he would have a fit and rightfully so So why does he turn around and use this kind of language scholars have found?

No, they have found nothing of the sort They've hypothesized based upon Inconsistent worldviews different from those the writers of Scripture, but they have not found anything in the guy

This was physically witnessed in the life of Jesus But because this is how the writers read the

Old Testament They thought this should have happened to Jesus and so they wrote it So John thought that there has to be some way in which there is an attempt that you know

People's legs are being broken But not Jesus is because it was written his legs shall not be broken

Even though that was written about actually didn't say that says no bone of his shall be brought in the same legs

The Paschal Lamb, it's something entirely different He they will look on the one whom he has pierced even though that is about false prophets who were pierced because there were false

Prophets John brings that here about Jesus even though Jesus is not a false prophet and that passage had nothing to do with Jesus But John adds these details not because they actually physically historically were witnessed in the life of or around the death of Jesus But because John thought that this should have happened because the

Old Testament said so and he wrote it as though it happened And the Old Testament confirmed it now again

Pure assertion no evidence. Oh, this is why John did it. How do you know why John did things? How do you have this kind of incredible magical insight into the very thought processes of other individuals?

You would never allow that to be to be done to anyone Muhammad or any of the the companions of the prophet

If anyone did that you would you'd be on like a duck on a June bug and you'd be demos How do you know these things but but when it comes to John or when it comes to Matthew all sudden?

We know exactly what their thought process was Okay, I know this is my turn. So how about if I just continue with that?

Is that okay? Let's take a break in a brief a breath for a moment. I'm not sure for debating

I would like to Encourage us to maybe take a step back and and go at this

Another direction Take a sip of water. Can we have some water points about three times and yes, we're not going anywhere

After you hear it three times Okay, I had some water. That was nice 15 minutes and then

Shabir you have 15 minutes after that and then we'll be going to the audience

Here we are some questions, but they just go right back to as they have To raise as a question, we'll go from there.

Okay, Mike A few thoughts on the the crucifixion.

Can I say that if you like? Okay, well, you've mentioned how we can't be certain nails for you as well in a very good book.

Okay, here we go This is this the part now one of the books that is a signed reading for the class on the cruise

Is about to be referenced here This is one of the reasons that I that I cited it and I wish I brought in with me today

Unfortunately, it's in my office but This is a a first -level book.

It is it is Scholarly, it is half the pages is footnotes.

Sometimes more than half the pages footnotes. It is very in -depth and It's It's very good.

Like I said the one that's going to be cited counter to this is a large book

By Rousseau and Rami Arav Published by fortress, but it is in essence a an archaeological and cultural dictionary

It's it's not first -level scholarship. It's it's a dictionary and it's got some bibliography and stuff but it's it is not an in -depth scholarly work on this particular subject now as as Lykona is going to point out

There is first level citations of specific individuals in his source that are not to be found in this other source

Let's see how this plays out and then I can expand upon as you listen to it by Martin Hengel an eminent New Testament scholar titled crucifixion he lists 13 sources in antiquity where nails are used and Josephus can be added to that list for number 14

We can probably add test tacitus to it as well as 15 Don't mind if I interrupt you but I didn't deny that nails were generally used in crucifixions but I'm asserting that nails were not necessarily used in every crucifixion a

Crucified victim might also be tied instead of being nailed Okay, Hengel does mention one account in antiquity where binding tying to the cross is used

But only that it was used and is it as a practice a practice in Egypt So we really just don't have any historical kind of evidence whatsoever to show that binding was used by the

Romans Everything seems to point to nails and so we have no reason to question that nails were used when it came to Jesus Crucifixion now, let me stop right there

Hopefully you understand what he's saying If if you go to Martin Hengel's book you go to the book crucifixion You will find a whole listing and and he provides you with the direct references the direct literary references to the ancient sources

Where these specific things take place and I checked this out myself The the only binding

Reference there is to Egypt. It's not to Roman practice In other words, if you were to assert that it is possible that the

Romans tied You would have to admit but we have no evidence of this and remember the passion movie is not a historical source

Okay, it's irrelevant it sort of marred this a whole thing and whatever, but the point is the documentary evidence first level primary sources speak to us of nails and You then have

John likewise reflecting this reality and unless you just automatically start off that John is guilty until proven innocent and Then just dismiss him on that basis.

Then there is a direct connection between John's testimony and That which is found in the ancient documentation now

Shabir is saying well, it's possible that he was tied. Okay. How do you prove that? Show us some sources show us some some give us give us

Tacitus. Give us Josephus Give us some of these these ancient writers that substantiate your position citing something like this book

Which I'm waving around the webcam here Jesus in his world is not citing scholarly literature and If you're gonna say well in this book it says so well then you need to go into the book and you need to look at the crucifixion crucifixion starts on page 74 and goes through page 77 78

And interestingly enough one of the sources that it cites in its bibliography, which is about a column tall

Is Martin Hengel crucifixion in the ancient world and the father the message of the cross German? 1976 translated by Jay Bowden, etc, etc

There is no discussion in here About the differences between tying and nailing and Egypt and it doesn't discuss any of these things

So in essence, this is not a relevant source It's it's not citing

Primary sources. Okay, just keep that in mind as you listen to what's about to develop In fact, this is the uniform I have a book here by a

John Rousseau and Rami Arav a book entitled Jesus and his world a cultural and An archaeological and cultural dictionary and here it is asserted that in fact in crucifixions that were possible

And to also use binding instead of nailing so nailing was not in every and I'm sorry

What references do they use in antiquity for that rather than just making a statement? Well, you can read the book yourself.

Well, no, this is a sorry This is an academic debate not a lunchroom discussion. And yeah, you you can't just say well this author says this you have to provide reasons

Yes, and I'm providing reasons. I'm citing you sources Now if you like I'll give you his references in his bibliography

He has named here a long list and rather than then delay everyone with that I'll show you the list and if you would like you can make a copy and I can

Okay, where's the list of here is the bibliography just dealing with the crucifixion right but you're responsible now to show me where it says that Binding is used not just the bibliography that I have to go through and read now

No Yeah I don't think I don't think this is necessary because remember you cited Martin Hengel whose book

I have in a sitting in my hotel room right now Martin Hengel you cited Martin Hengel.

I did not question the integrity of the of the scholar Martin Hengel is a known scholar.

I respect him and if he says that his sources lead him to this conclusion I have no doubt in that here

We have a couple of respectable scholars producing a respectable book with a long list Just dealing with the few pages in which they have dealt with the crucifixion.

So praises 74 75 76 77 and a part of 78 deals with the crucifixion and then his

His list of books almost fills the rest of that page So I do not question the integrity of these scholars and you cannot say that in the midst of a debate here.

We should Question the scholar who got the information from the other scholars

Now he's really struggling here because there is a there's a substantial difference between these two sources

One is citing the patristic sources one is studying the historical sources one is giving you primary reference material and sources

This book again showing to the webcam is going on secondary source

It's citing as its source what Mike Lycona is citing now.

I have the book open in front of me Let me read you some of this here This is specifically

Let me see here Occasionally applied to citizens lower class of provincials some of the Jews he had scourged and nailed on Crosses before his tribunal

Roman citizens of equestrian rank. This is page 74 And see here

Then on page 75 Roman crucifixion Roman crucifixion normally consisted of three elements scourging carrying of the cross by the condemned and nailing and lifting a

Titulus indicated the nature of the crime as was the case for Jesus Jesus of Nazareth king of the Jews John 19 19 in parallels

It was a board covered with gypsum inscribed with black letters and carried before the condemned at the head of the procession

To the execution ground there were two main types of crosses t -shaped and dagger -shaped in either case The upright beam was normally planted in a fixed position and the petibulum or crossbar was movable and carried by the condemned

JJ Collins distinguishes between the crooks humilious low cross on which the feet of the victim were from 10 to 18 inches above the ground and the crooks sublimest the high cross on which the feet were about three feet above the ground

The low cross would have been used for common criminals So they would easily could be devoured by beasts at the whim of the executioner a peg or sedecula or a short crossbar forming a narrow seat could be

Added to allow the victim to sit for a while a footrest which appears in some paintings is not attested in the first century

CE The hands or wrists were nailed or the arms tied there's the only only only reference to tied to the petibulum, which was lifted with the victim hanging by means of ladders and This is let me point them out.

There's no reference here There's no footnote. It just simply says it. There's there's no citation of an original source

There's no citation of an ancient source. It's just simply stated and there's no reference given that is the only thing

I can find the hands or wrists were nailed or the arms tied to the petibulum which was lifted with the victim hang by means of ladders and For sale

I poles ending with a y -shaped fork The petibulum was secured in a mortise of the upright in the case of a dagger -shaped cross or on top of it for a t -shaped

Cross the feet were usually nailed the upright beam But could be kept loose death was not always quick and the victim might agonize for several days before dying

Receivers reports during the siege of Jerusalem and coming back from Tekoa. He recognized three of his friends on crosses

He obtained permission from Titus and by the way should beard has mentioned this already and you might mention again

He obtained permission from Titus to have them taken down and one of them survived medical studies suggest a crucifixion death was caused by asphyxiation

But his short experiments of volunteer students were are unconclusive and so on so forth

He goes on to talk about asphyxiation and things like that. And then when he talks about the archaeological evidence

It's all about nailing. There's nothing about about for example, it says

The tibia and fibula of his legs were apparently broken and his right heel bone Was pierced by four and a half inches long nail the nail first had been driven through a small piece of olive wood and probably to prevent the foot from moving off the narrow head of the nail a

Scratch and while the wrist bones may have resulted from contact with a nail driven through the forearm near the wrist So this is nail nail nail nail and there is no discussion of Who did tying and who didn't do tying or or anything like that?

This is a secondary source. It is not a primary source So what Shabir is trying to do is trying to make this a primary source and say well

It's just your scholars versus my scholars and he's completely missing the fact that Mike's saying look Here's the list and I've even added

Josephus and I've added Tacitus and this makes 15 We can go through each one of these and it sounds to me like Shabir struggles to understand what an original source is and what a secondary source is in this exchange that would be

I think a sticky point Who can you provide as a

Counter example where binding was used by the Romans there now that is an absolutely perfectly valid question and to On a scholarly level to be able to to say

I've won this point or I've responded this point Shabir has got to give either an ancient source.

Not not this book. This is not an ancient source Okay, he's got to give a specific individual

He's got to say well Suetonius Records this and here is the reference. Okay, that would be an appropriate response at this point and it otherwise the only way to respond to this would be to say well,

I don't have any and I would assert that the the literature on the subject is not

Significance sufficiently wide and full enough to draw any conclusions from the silence

Even though you have 15 sources that refer to nails with the Romans And I cannot give you any counter examples

I would just argue that there is an insufficient amount of data to draw anything conclusive from that now

Obviously, I would disagree with that. But as far as I can tell that is the only meaningful way of You know trying to get out of this particular position, but that's not what he does

What I'm providing is a book that has been written by a couple of reputable scholars. They're not Muslim scholars. John Rousseau Rami Arab Who cares their

Muslim scholars? That wasn't the point. That's almost that that's almost a a Means of Short -circuiting the the conversation to say well, these aren't

Muslim scholars. He didn't say anything about them being Muslim scholars He is looking for original sources. It's it's a book with it with a respectable

Presentation. It's a scholarly academic text. No, it's okay scholarly academic.

What is that supposed to mean? it's certainly not first -level information like like Angeles and It is much more of a compilation of articles on various issues

Which includes one brief article on crucifixion. That's about You know what maybe one twenty -fifth of the length of Hengel's work one one fiftieth, you know of the material found within it something along those lines

It's it's billed as a dictionary. And in fact, that's what it is. It's a listing alphabetically of information of a historical nature

They're not making things up and they have listed their bibliography If you doubt that you want to take it up with these scholars go right ahead

But they didn't make the assertion that Shabir is making yes at one point they say nailed or Tied but they don't discuss

Who did what and since like Kona has already made the distinction between the Egyptian use and the

Roman use at? This point on any meaningful scholarly level on any academic level on any debate level point like Kona Shabir loses that's the not not even a question at this point

You cannot hear Insist that that information is wrong without having proper proof yourself.

You see he's not saying that information is wrong That's that's again. This is this is completely fallacious argumentation.

He's not saying the argument is wrong He has not made that statement because they aren't arguing that the

Romans used tying they haven't even addressed the issue and And and unless he reads this stuff and reads it into the record and actually provides

This is this is just how to get out of a point that you you shouldn't actually have been made and making in the first Place an expert witness by himself is it proof for a point?

No, no, no No, no, it is not and not especially when they have not given expert testimony to the point at hand

Which unfortunately that's one of the things you can sort of get away with in a debate is I? Doubt that Mike like when

I had this book sitting there to where he could go. Wait a minute Actually, this is all it says and you're expanding it far beyond what even its own authors would have made as an application

You want to refute that proof? You can bring other expert witnesses who say that it is not so far all you have mentioned is that Martin Hengel has found evidence that binding was used for crucifixions in another part of the world, but You're arguing from silence because Martin you have not approved from Martin Hengel that the binding was not used and Who would it be incumbent upon to demonstrate that it was but the one making the assertion?

I hope I hope the logic bells just went off and everybody's minds. Whoa. Whoa. Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute It is part of Shabir's assertion That it's possible that Jesus was just tied and this would tie into then his

Jesus didn't die Argumentation but when he's going against all of the historical documentation

When he's going on the basis of something said six hundred years later

Then it's incumbent upon him to provide the positive evidence He just turned that around because he can't provide the positive evidence among the

Romans and here these scholars have offered information to show that binding

Was used I don't think we have any reason they did not provide any evidence that they just made the assertion

They there's like I said, there's no reference. No, there's no reference footnote to provide any any of that data

They're not even addressing. This is not something that they were addressing in their writings So to force it into this mode

And in this mold is is completely improper to doubt the integrity of these scholars

Now if I had said it for myself, then you can challenge me. Okay, Shabir, bring me your proof I brought you the proof here

Then you asked me for the proof for the proof what you have shown me is a single book and you haven't given me a

Statement out of it which shows that the Rome that the Romans used binding Hangle in his book does provide 13 sources where the

Romans used nails and like I said, we can add Josephus to that we can probably add

Tacitus to it because he says that Christians were were at fixed to crosses the

Latin term affixed And then they were set ablaze on fire and they wouldn't use binding or else the ropes would burn

So nails make more sense there if we take Tacitus there Well, then that would be an additional source and bring it up to 15

Yeah So notice that this you're arguing from silence because saying that nails were used does not deny that for some other victim

Ropes were used right. It's not an argument from silence this this is

If the argument that is being made is being made by Shabir Ali that Jesus might have been only bound and not nailed and he's going against all of the historical sources then the one making the assertion has to bear the burden of the proof and So you can't if you cannot deflect the need for you to bear the burden of the proof

By saying you're arguing from silence because they're not making an argument. Okay? He's not arguing from silence.

He's got 15 sources and he's named them and they are original sources not

Citations of Jesus in his world or something like that, which is a secondary resource He's talking about ancient writers who specifically were there they were observers of the act of crucifixion and how the

Romans did it and I would say if you even read what Shabir and I just read it for you

There's one reference to tying and everything else all the archaeological evidence Everything else is to nailing everything and there's no reference to the one tying said things said in passing to even address the controversy that is currently being addressed in the cross -examination

All the evidence we have says nails and we do have the four testimonies of the gospel since you're using them

I'll just point out that John mentions nails. In fact

Luke alludes to it when he says that Jesus showed his hands. Yes to them So if that's the case, we do have two reports that said nails

It seems to go in with the other reports that are available. And so you're not answering to my point

Mike Well, the point is that because it was known as you catch that Mike tried to say the burden of proof is yours

But he's too nice Okay, that's my advantage. I'm not

Okay, I'm not too nice and I would be shouting it from the highest hilltops at this point that Shabir is dancing here

And he's trying to shift the burden of proof onto somebody else and and trying to make it look like That he has answered the point when in fact he has has not that nails were generally used

The gospel writers wrote that nails were used not because it was historically factually witnessed and recorded at the time but because at the time when the disciples were writing they wrote what

Normally happened at a crucifixion not only what normally happened But as time went by and they wanted to prove definitely that Jesus underwent the worst possible tortures

They improved the level of torture. So it went from mark a little to now again. Why did they want to prove this?

You see that the Muslim is reading back into the New Testament his own worldview and concepts and his own concerns and and I would argue he's even reading back a

Later issue even even as far as the interpretation of the Quran is concerned But still even if you take it straight back to Muhammad that wasn't the issue in the early church

Nobody was questioning the crucifixion at that point Nobody was questioning how Romans did everybody knew how

Romans did it? That wasn't the point there was no apologetic reason for there to be some corruption of the text and the part of the

Apostles to try to prove worse and worse and grosser and grosser

Sufferings in a part of Jesus There's no reason to even to begin to think that that was their apologetic issue

The only reason a Muslims concerned about is because 600 years later a guy in Arabia got confused about it

That's the only reason that that kind of a historical methodology is being enforced here

Matthew and Luke further and John even worse and in Mel Gibson's movie even further still so Mentioning Mel Gibson's movie not because we're debating that but because it illustrates what happened with the

Gospels the kind of imaginative work that went in and the fact that Gibson can do that with us today even though we have the written

Gospels before us to See where he has actually gone off on a tangent Shows the kinds of imaginative work that could have been done before him prior to the availability of these written documents

So the first writers had much more of a latitude to present the case the way they thought it should be presented

And in fact foaming through the Gospels This is what we find that they did so that whereas in Mark's Gospel pilot is doubtful that Jesus had died

So soon in Mark and Luke even though they are basically almost verbatim giving us the same story from Mark They have nevertheless reworded it so that the doubt of pilot is not expressed in Mark or Matthew and Luke Now again, this is the kind of mind reading interpretation

That is so common in in liberal scholarship You start with your presuppositions and you you assume that these texts cannot be what they claim to be and therefore

Okay, I'm going to going to read into Luke and read into Mark and read into Matthew certain concepts certain

Presuppositions that I think they had and therefore I'm going to explain any differences especially in the

Synoptic Gospels based upon my psychoanalysis my historical reconstruction of the particular concerns and interests of Either these writers or if you really want to be a good liberal, you don't worry about a single writer you just come up with a community that produce these that that way you can you can

The sky is the limits as to how far you can go because if you have just a whole bunch of authors

Then it's real easy. You can you can just Come up with every possible kind of interpretation and motivation you want to then have to be consistent

In fact, the less consistent they are the better you probably get published more often you know because you just turn

Matthew Mark and Luke into a mishmash of Contradictory concepts and insights and so on and so forth and Raymond Brown says that possibly the reasons

Why the reason why Matthew and Luke reworded it such is so that their readers should not

Also doubt like pilot as to whether or not Jesus had actually died now. See no matter what you do if you include pilots doubt

That means one thing if you don't include pilots doubt that means another thing and see it if you include it then whoever included it somehow was confused and was increasing people's doubts about the resurrection somehow even though the same book would go on and Demonstrate that he had died and he was resurrected and then if you exclude it, then you're tampering with history see

It might it just be that the author doesn't include every single bit of the story and Maybe your theory that there's this slavish

Copying going on where one writer is sitting there and he's got two other writers in front of him and he's just got to He's just got to look at it and go well,

I've got this over here and I've got this over here Well, what should I include and if I take this out then I've got to have motivation taking it up Maybe your slavish copying theory doesn't work either and doesn't fit the facts

I mean if you have to continually be accusing the authors of all sorts of historical dishonesty and fraud

Maybe your theories are wrong. Have you ever thought about that? Maybe you need to go back to square one and come up with a different theory that actually fits the facts and I think that Reminds me of the

Quranic point that those who differed concerning him were in doubt as to what happened as to the matter

They were not sure that they actually killed him and for a certainly they killed him not some other Interpretation is now have you noticed how long has it been since we heard

Mike say anything? I mean Shabir is just on a roll here and and He's got to stop him because he's he's he's just going on and on and now he's how many points down the road is he has he got that that's

That's one way to get around something and you can sort of tell when someone starts speeding up like that They're trying to get as far away from the point that they know they were wrong on as they possibly can and that's a good indication necessary here and In the light of the if no one had claimed that he had resurrected from the dead

Perhaps we would accept that he actually died just like the historians do and that's what they say because they do not believe that He actually physically bodily resurrected from the dead.

They could say he died, but if we are To say he resurrected from the dead

Then we must question did he really die or not? And when we look at the earliest shadow of evidence There is no clear indication that he actually died on the cross

You know that that statement has been made five or six times and it has been refuted just as often What do you mean?

There is no evidence in the earliest strata there there every strata that can be identified

Contains this evidence. All he's done is just dismissed as a later emendation without any physical evidence

Any manuscript evidence that any linguistic evidence just based upon presuppositions He's dismissed all the statements to the contrary.

So how convenient remember the When I asked

Shabir, how do you know? How can you tell us what's what's still inspired in New Testament?

Well that which agrees the Quran So well, it disagrees. We just dismiss that and then go. Hey, look, there's no evidence for your position

Well, once you've dismissed everything that contradicts that position Okay. Yeah, I guess that follows but Is someone actually gonna call this this rational argumentation?

I'm certainly not the gospel say he died all of them say he died All of the

Gospels say he rose from the dead None of them say there was any doubt so because I can't prove

That nails were used even though that's the testimony of the Gospels because I can't prove that ropes weren't used instead

The gospel writers are doubting whether Jesus died and rose No, Mike, the gospel writers are not doubting that Jesus died and rose

I don't think you're getting my point The gospel writers are out to prove that Jesus died and rose and the later the gospel the more they try to prove it

So in other words, they're not doubting it. They know it's not true and they're liars

They're making this stuff up out of whole cloth because it didn't happen So let's be straightforward of what he's saying here.

I hope in October he will be let's you know Let's be straightforward. The gospel writers were historical frauds they've lied and blasphemed they've lied about Jesus blasphemed

God and All of what they have to say Has to be taken

With with great suspicion Now I will then of course ask upon what basis that kind of assertion is made and whether he applies that as well to all the companions the

Prophet and all the Hadith writers and and And to Uthman and the compilers the Quran and and can we say they were all liars?

Therefore we haven't a clue what Muhammad said does it follow if not? That will require consistency and as we've seen there isn't none to be found there and you can see that After the first gospel is written some questions are raised and the later

Gospels try to eliminate those questions For example who carried the cross of Jesus I mentioned in my opening presentation that some second century

Christians believe that Simon the Cyrene was Who was made to carry the cross of Jesus was made to look like Jesus and crucified instead now second century

Christians That's a nice way of saying second century Gnostics okay, not people who actually believe the

Gospels or accept the Gospels or have a Christian worldview or any type of biblical worldview or Anything of the kind but all of a sudden they become

Christians now if I find a group in the second century of Islam that Rejects Muhammad and believes in a plurality of gods if I call them

Muslims. What is Shabir's response going to be? Well, they weren't Muslims Why because we can define a

Muslim a Muslim believes certain things, okay So these folks who didn't believe the thing is defined Christian.

Oh, no, you can't define Christianity, but I can define Islam That's how it works double standards inconsistency sign of a failed argument now

The gospel according to John says that Jesus went out carrying his own cross and then the next thing you know

He arrives at Golgotha So you cannot have it both ways The first three

Gospels has it that Simon the Cyrene was compelled to carry the cross because obviously Jesus was too weak to carry it

The gospel according to John now again, this is basic Synoptic interpretation 101.

Oh, we have a contradiction here. Jesus carried his own cross or did Simon the Cyrene well if again

Jesus goes out Simon is along the way he is brought in to assist

So one doesn't include the story and therefore somehow he's rejecting the story or giving a different story

How does that follow Do you apply that to any other historical source?

Automatically you have to again assume that there is this collusion this purposeful deceptiveness and a part of the gospel writers

They're actually sitting there with everybody else's book and they're looking at going. Okay, what am I conclude when I conclude? How do

I edit this? I've you know, I don't like how he said it So I'm gonna change things blah blah blah blah blah blah without providing any evidence to substantiate the assertion in the first place

Oh, but many scholars do this. Yeah. Well many scholars do a lot of things Many scholars do all sorts of things that text the

Quran too. So what let's try consistent shows that Jesus is strong and powerful throughout He doesn't get arrested he hands himself over nobody dares to arrest him because they just fall back the moment he says

I am he Notice he knows about John 18 5 through 6 and ago I me And of course as a good liberal theologian would

We know Jesus would never have said ago I me and we know that having said so the soldiers would never fall back

Why because we're good naturalist materialists and we don't believe in Miracles, and so we're being consistent there except for one thing

Shibrelli's a Muslim and so he can't buy into that worldview and he can't take it as a presupposition that miracles don't exist and Yet when he reads the

New Testament He buys lock stock and barrel the naturalistic materialistic reading of the of the text that dismisses the miraculous element and of course

Jesus did not have any type of self -consciousness of Deity as reflected in the

Gospel of John, so John must have just made all this up. What is it again? Islamic anachronistic eisegesis

I ae You look at the New Testament through the lens of the

Quran and therefore you distort it and destroy it That's how it works

Jesus hands himself over because he's deliberately dying for the sins of mankind a very different picture than we have in the synoptic

Now where did we hear that where do we hear that in? The John Dominic Crossan debate the exact same assertion was made

He made the exact same comparison between John and Mark and what did I do? I demonstrated it was wrong, which is not all that difficult to do if you just let the text speak for itself

This idea that in Mark you just have this out -of -control Person who's just under the control of forces beyond him and John is just all this.

I'm just in charge of anything That is a gross misreading It's a gross misreading both contain the elements of the concern and the the the tremendous suffering involved in Taking on the sins of the world, but but in Mark Jesus isn't just being driven by forces beyond his understanding

It is necessary that I go to Jerusalem He's prophesying his own death, burial and resurrection.

Well, I just must have been stuck in there by someone who read John I guess I mean, you know Once you once you've decided to just throw the text out you can do anything you want you can come up with hypothetical redactors and editors all you want and and any

Fact that is contrary to your presuppositions any fact that's contrary to your argument can simply be dismissed based upon that According to John because Jesus is so strong throughout.

He doesn't need anybody to carry his cross, but a more important point that People were reading the other

Gospels and using it as a proof that possibly Simon was in fact crucified instead of Jesus who?

Who? nobody was Nobody was there it even if you go to 2nd century

Gnostics Who tried to because they were duelists do away with the crucifixion because Jesus doesn't have a physical body to crucify in the first place

Even if you go into the middle of the 2nd century, are you seriously trying to argue that John was written then?

We have p52 that pre -exists the rise of Valentinian Gnosticism It's not

Possible. It's it's historically Impossible you can't do it, but he does it and sadly how many people listening to what he has to say would even recognize that he'd he just Ran up the white flag and said

I lose I Lose that's it. I may be filibustering here and not letting the other guys say a word, but I lose because I'm coming up with some this this is this is just as bad historically and biblically and Chronologically as the

Gospel of Thomas is earlier than Mark stuff that I've seen Muslims Taking him on about and recognizing is is a historical absurdity

But there it is John did not want his gospel to be read in this particular way and so he has it that Jesus went out carrying his own cross

He emphasizes that point not just simply that Jesus went out carrying his cross

But Jesus went out carrying his own cross as it what was he supposed to be carrying someone else's

I mean It's at this point. It's very very very difficult because we're in the midst of a filibuster and and Coming from a point that we've demonstrated

He was just wrong on and and he's continuing to pile the the errors on here So we'll continue with that as a time allows

Lord willing we will be with you again on Tuesday morning Regular time here on the dividing line continue with your phone calls and with the debate.

We'll see you then god bless We need

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at PO box

Three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks