Was Jesus Crucified? Part 6

Those that are watching live streaming at this time, Christianity .com,

have reports that several hundred are watching at home with us, from Eternity Road Chapel in London.

At this time we're going to have a crossfire session. What you're about to witness now is a little crossfire.

And each of our speakers is going to be given 90 seconds, and it's going to alternate back and forth in 90 second segments.

There'll be 14 of those, and it'll last about 21 minutes. Exactly 21 minutes. And I think we need to put it in a change.

We're going to begin with Sammy, and he's going to start in just a moment with the first of our crossfire. The scholarship.

Because I've brought on mainstream scholars, E .T. Sanders, respected mainstream scholars.

Now, I appreciate the fact that I disagree with them, but they remain accepted and respected academic mainstream scholars, and they teach about Jesus teaching.

But don't you think it's a bit unfair to compare mainstream scholars to any great scholar out there?

I'm aware that there are people who teach that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, didn't exist, but there are people who teach several things.

And one of those supposed scholars who teaches about the Prophet Muhammad not existing and published a book is

Robert Spencer, and he's not an Islamic scholar by any means. On the other hand, people like E .T.

Sanders, or Bart Ehrman, they have done their studies, they know the creed, they know the

Hebrew, they know the language. In many cases, some of them were Christians. So don't you think it's a bit unfair to just throw all their scholarship out and at the same time,

I don't invite these people to affirm my faith. Whether they affirm my faith or not has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments that I make.

In fact, I don't accept them to affirm my faith for the arguments. Well, you know, the irony here is that Sanders, Ehrman, and all these others substantiate my position and debate that.

They all believe that Jesus was crucified. They all recognize that the historical information is without question that it was

Jesus, not someone who was made to look like Jesus. It was Jesus in Nazareth who was crucified at a

Roman cross outside of Jerusalem during the days of Herod under the orders of Pilate.

So if Ehrman can say that one of the clearest facts of history is that Jesus died, then what we're dealing with here are the interpretations they then make of what that meant.

So we can't change the focus of the debate to the resurrection because the reason it's somewhat like a martyr— by the way,

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. But that's not all he was. You see, the problem is they want to limit

Jesus to something much smaller than he actually was. Jesus was a first century Jew. He lived in that context.

That's what he taught. That's how he should be understood. There's a question about that. There are insights you can gain from all of that.

But the fact is, you then have a limitation of the application those books allow.

But the fact is, for the debate this evening, they're on my side. They agree with me. And you say, well, it has no bearing on your faith.

Well, again, the question, Sammy, is, is Islamic faith a faith that has historical grounding, or is it something that has no historical grounding whatsoever and ignores the mountain of historical evidence?

All right. I've actually addressed that, and I raised that point first in my presentation.

They affirm your point that he was on the cross, but again, all these historical references do nothing to contradict my point, because the

Qur 'an says the crucifixion did take place, and people thought it was Jesus. So that affirms my point, and I actually raised that first.

But secondly, as we all know, your faith doesn't revolve around the cross only.

Your faith also revolves around the resurrection, and it's false that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then your faith is null and void.

And they all reject the resurrection of Jesus. Now, you say it's because they reject the supernatural, but that's a bit unfair of them, because they've given evidences as to why those stories are doubtful, just as I have given my evidence as to why those resurrection accounts are doubtful as well.

So they reject the resurrection, and if you can prove that the resurrection wasn't taking place, then it also affirms my point, which

I made in my presentation, that these resurrection accounts were made up later to account for their misunderstood belief that in a

Bible tradition, it was a resurrected Jesus, and that's why you find all the contradictions in the stories, and that's why you're rejecting it, because of all that evidence.

A meeting of a live Jesus, as we have pointed out, would require that Jesus correct their misapprehensions, or Jesus is the worst teacher we have ever lived with.

Can you imagine Jesus allowing his disciples to begin an entire religion based on a falsehood, because he just didn't take the time to tell them, guys,

I wasn't crucified. I'm sorry, that is utterly untenable from any logical, rational, historical perspective, and there's not one person who has been quoted this evening, who thinks that should happen.

That's not what Sarah says. That's not what Mark says. That's not what any of these scholars think should happen. But the interesting thing is, these very same scholars that you are quoting against the resurrection, which isn't the debate this evening, but I'm quoting against the resurrection, they would also reject everything you believe about Jesus' life.

I mean, Bart Ehrman would not believe that Jesus formed little birds of clay and breathed on them, that he blew away.

And he would say to you, that's a story that came from the Gnostic Gospels, because it did. And Bart Ehrman and E .P.

Sanders would not believe that Jesus spoke from his cradle, because that's another story that came from early

Christians, but hundreds of years after the event. And they would point that out too. And so my question is, where's the consistency in relying upon these individuals, when they would say the evidence would clearly refute the

Koran as well? Where is the consistency at this particular point in time? That's what you'd be looking at.

And again, I simply point out that these scholars are on my side in regards to the thesis of the debate this evening, and that is the

Koran's denial of the historical reality of the crucifixion itself. That's technically false.

I'll repeat it again, because the Koran does not deny the historical event. It says it was made through computers, so I'd expect them to say that.

But secondly, that's another strawman argument, because I even said it. I am relying on these scholars to affirm my faith.

Whether they affirm my faith or not has no bearing on the other arguments that have been raised.

And the arguments that they've done with their scholarship has been backed by evidence.

And then you say, well, Jesus would have been a terrible teacher if he just let the mistokers stand there.

Well, he actually did. The apocalyptic teachings are false, yet disciples were teaching them.

So he was a bad teacher because they were teaching something that is false. The verses clearly say that those things were going to happen in his generation.

They never happened in his generation. Mainstream scholarship says he's an apocalyptic prophet.

Now, you can refuse to accept the mainstream scholarship. You can refuse to accept the clear text.

But that's the evidence right there. And that's the point I'm making. The fact that they misunderstood it on these apocalyptic teachings shows it's also plausible that they misunderstood a body of Jesus or a resurrected

Jesus. That's the whole point I'm making. So I'm staying very consistent to my argument.

So he did teach them a false teaching. First of all, we need to find the crucifixion versus the crucifixion of Jesus.

To say, well, they crucify you if you're being picky. That's what we've been told to say.

We can't ask those questions. But we have to accept the assertion. If you're going to make the assertion, then you have to be able to back up the assertion itself.

And so, when you say, well, the crucifixion took place. Of whom? What happened to Jesus?

Was he taken up to heaven? Well, but you're being picky. Those are irrelevant. No, those are all very relevant. I think we all see that.

If you can't answer those questions this evening, I don't think you can begin to substantiate the thesis of the debate in any way, shape, or form.

You say, these things have no bearing on my faith. What if I said to you, well, what Bart Ehrman says has no bearing on my faith because the resurrection happened whether Bart Ehrman believes it or not.

Now what I've said is the resurrection itself is the main historical event for which I'm not going to offer any evidence.

I'm not going to do that. But my question is, is that what Islam is? Is Islam a faith that has a historical foundation?

Did the ninth flight take place? Did it take place in time, in space?

Was the moon split in two? Did the hijra take place? Was there a cave?

Did Gabriel, did Jibreel speak to Muhammad? Did the Quran come down and lay back on fire?

Is this all mythology? Is this just a faith that has no connection with history?

And if so, doesn't that mean that Islam bases itself completely differently than the Torah and the

Injil, which came before? Alright, let's answer your questions.

Who was on the cross? Not Jesus. Was he taken to heaven? Yes. The question is answered.

That's the main point. Those are the main points. He's being picky.

The Bible is everything. And now I'll ask you a question. They weren't there because each are contradicting each other.

Who went to the tomb? Was it three women? Was it two? Or was it one? And where did the disciples meet

Jesus? In Galilee or Jerusalem? So please respond to those points.

Now what about the points that say, well, is everything armed just on faith? And can things be backed historically?

Yes, many things can be backed historically. But some things, none of them can be backed historically.

And that's not a problem for Atheists. Many things in the Bible can be backed historically as well.

Anyway, tonight's debate is not about whether the prophet went to Jerusalem, which was reported by mass narrations, which passes the historical test of it.

But we can debate that on another day, which comes down to proving the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

So that's not the debate for tonight. But I'd like you to answer those questions concerning the contradictory accounts of the resurrection.

Two, three, who was at the tomb, and so forth. Thank you. So that would have told me, yes,

Jesus was taken to heaven. Okay, so Surah 158 is saying

Jesus was taken to heaven. So that means that the disciples didn't meet the living Jesus. Or was he taken to heaven after meeting with the disciples?

But the only reason you know that he met with the disciples is because the Gospels say so, but you can't say you trust the Gospels because they're contradictory. How does all that work?

Surah 4158 doesn't tell us that. It doesn't have to do with the fact that Muslims believe that Jesus was taken to heaven at that point in time.

Again, this is not being picky. If you're making a historical assertion that contradicts the written documents that came in the first century, you have to deal with these things.

Now, again, how many angels were there? If one person reports that they spoke with an angel, and the other person says, well, there were two of them, saying things, that's contradictory.

Why is that contradictory? If one of them said that there was only one angel and no others, and the other one says there were two angels, not one, that would be contradictory.

But if one focuses upon one thing, for example, in the Gadarene and Demoniac story, in one version of it, the focus is solely upon the one

Gadarene and Demoniac, and in another, there is the brief mention that there was a second man with him who never says or does anything.

So one writer decides to focus upon the one. The one gives the added information. Added information all of a sudden becomes contradiction.

It's not contradiction. And again, you can never parallelize the parallel accounts in the Gadarene if you engage in this kind of rejection of meaningful harmonization.

You just couldn't do it. And if you can do it, then you're both wrong.

So that's when you quote the prophecy, and it doesn't help your cause. Now, you say one account is giving more details than the others.

No, that's wrong, because one account clearly says there was only one angel. Another account says there were two.

So these are two different stories. You're just deciding to make your own story out of it.

Oh, well, that guy decided to leave that information out, and that guy decided to put that information in.

You didn't address the part about where did they meet, in Jerusalem or Galilee, because it clearly says in Luke and Acts, they met him at this town, and Matthew says they met him at that town, whether it's

Jerusalem or Galilee. There's no such thing as leaving that information out.

When you say the first place they met him in was in Jerusalem, and the other account says Galilee.

Secondly, in my presentations, I gave your Gospels the benefit of the doubt. They're not my only case.

Before I gave your Gospels the benefit of the doubt, I clearly mentioned that these Gospels aren't written by the disciples.

I don't believe they're written by the disciples. I don't even believe they were transmitted by the disciples. I don't even believe

I have any writings from the disciples. So, I make that point clear, because there's not many actual first -hand accounts from Jesus' followers, who supposedly preached his resurrection and so forth.

But I gave your Gospels the benefit of the doubt. Well, notice what we just had here.

We were told in one of the Gospels, it says that only one angel is there. I'd like to reference,

I'd like to know where the Greek monos appears. So, if you could show us where the Greek term monos appears, that's a term only, then we can deal with that.

But notice what was just said here. These books were not written by disciples.

So, where are the original disciples of Jesus? We have a situation here where, again, we're talking about the crucifixion of Jesus.

Basically, Samuel said, yeah, history's on your side. But, that doesn't really matter, because the

Qur 'an says otherwise. But, the Qur 'an does tell us historically true things. But on this instance, we can't historically examine it.

And yet, here's a man who believes that in Surah 5, we have recorded for us the actual statements of the disciples to Jesus, requesting that a table be sent down to them.

That's why Surah 5 is called Surah Al -Ma 'idah, the table. The story of the table. So, you have someone who will accept something that the disciples said that's recorded 600 years later.

No evidence of it for 600 years going back to the days of the disciples. That's okay, because the

Qur 'an says it. But, the actual Gospels that come from the 1st century, we can't trust what they said, because one gives more information than another does.

Is that consistent? Is that a sound basis upon which to substantiate the thesis of debate tonight? That's what the question is,

I think. All right, I'll ask for the third time that they may not be getting it first, or just this.

And, history is not on your side, because they only affirm the crucifixion. But, as Paul said, your faith does not rely on the crucifixion only.

And if it can be proven that the resurrection accounts are baseless, then that helps my cause.

Because if there is no resurrection, there is no death. Now, again, the

Gospels are saying two different things on the accounts. Can you explain who went to the tomb first?

Was it three women? Was it two women? Or was it one? Those are saying three different stories.

And, if you don't think it's a problem that the ending of Mark has been added into, with that whole account of the supposed post -appearances, then what would be a problem for your

Gospel? If entire paragraphs have been added to put in a supposed story of what happened after Jesus rose, if that's not a problem, if someone's adding verses into your text about a supposed story, then what do you consider a problem if someone can tamper with the text and they can just make up whatever they feel like?

What would you consider to be a consistent argument if that's not a consistent argument to doubt the authenticity of your

Gospel? I know that you want to get away from the actual thesis subject tonight because it's already been established, to be honest with you.

Now we want to go on and talk about the legendary contradiction, and the idea is, well, the resurrection is connected to the crucifixion, so therefore you need to deal with all those contradictions allegedly regarding the crucifixion.

I guess I'll just take that as an establishment that we've established the crucifixion took place. All the evidence says it was

Jesus, not just a crucifixion. I reject the idea that, well, yes, the crucifixion took place, but it wasn't

Jesus. There's no evidence of some other crucifixion that these people were talking about. But I've written an entire book on the subject of textual criticism.

I'm not sure if you've had the opportunity to read my discussion of Mark 16, 19, 20, all the textual evidence related to that.

You say, what would be a problem? The problem would be if we couldn't recognize that Mark 16, 19, 20 was an edition.

And that's the problem we have with the Qanon. You're listening? Because that's what we're going to be talking about on Monday night.

You see, we, because of the manuscript revision we have, can recognize the later editions to the text because we have the earlier texts.

But what do you have for the Qanon prior to the Ithmanic revision? What did Ithman do with the materials that were not a part of his official version?

Why did he disagree with Abd al -Ibn Masud on his readings and demand that he turn over his example?

Those are the issues that we're getting into tonight, but they are issues that are very, very relevant.

All right, I'd like to establish a point because you're doing something very smart which supposedly undermines me.

The main thesis of the Crucifixion, I'm the one who established the thesis on both the

Crucifixion and the Resurrection. And I'm the one who originally said that there are a lot of historical sources that affirm the

Crucifixion which backs my argument. So let's get that out of the way. I am the first one who raised it.

So when you keep repeating it and they giggle, that's affirming my points. Secondly, why could

I link the Crucifixion to the Resurrection? Because if you can clearly prove that someone rose from the dead, then the

Qur 'an is proven false because it says he was alive. But if you can prove that the Resurrection accounts are false, full of contradictions and unreliable, and that no death ever happened, then that affirms the

Qur 'anic point that nobody died. So there's a connection. If you can't follow along, that's not my problem.

Now, what about the manuscripts? The manuscripts help you know the false from the right. Wrong. Because the manuscripts you have aren't even the original manuscripts.

They're the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the worst copy manuscript.

And many mainstream scholars have even said, you can't even go to the original Bible. What you have is a copy, not even of the original.

So you know false stories, false stories from the copy, not even from the original. If you're gonna go murder, then you're gonna have to defend murder.

Murder is simply wrong. We have a number of papyri that could not be a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.

It's simply impossible. He is being, shall we say, somewhat obtuse at that point.

And you're wrong. Have you ever examined PQQ2? P7 -Bont, P66. These are not copies and copies and copies and copies and copies ten generations down the road.

So the facts simply don't substantiate that point. If they were, why are they so much alike to one another?

But here's the problem. Here's what we're dealing with this evening. What Samuel Smola says, yeah, the Quran says that God made an impure display.

We can't tell you how. We can't tell you what He did. But He made an impure display, so history's been telling you there was a crucifixion, and so all that's left of it is

Max Meyer. No, it doesn't. Because the historical evidence was that a specific person was crucified.

And that specific person, even according to Samuel Smola's assertions, then met with his disciples after that event.

And we are actually being asked, there's always in whatever, whether it's the Ahmadi view or whatever it is, there's always in whatever

Islamic position it's taken, a fatal flaw. Here's the fatal flaw. What we're having to believe this evening, what we've been told we must believe this evening, is that Jesus failed to correct the misapprehension of His disciples, and the result was they all went out preaching that He had died and rose again.

Can you imagine that taking place? Can you imagine that happening? I cannot. That's it.

I knew we'd lose. Well, that finishes our crossfire section.

We're now going to move into our final arguments. We're going to ask Sammy to begin those. Sammy will have five minutes and will be followed immediately by James.

Thank you. Alright, thank you.

Just before I get into conclusions, can I tell you what happened? I did tell you what happened.

Jesus wasn't crucified. He was saved. Now, in order for me to completely prove all of that,

I need a two -hour debate to prove the divinity of Islam. And then, that is the affirmation.

But there are many things in your own Bible which you can't prove. It's not honest enough to prove that not everything in my book or my beliefs are always going to be proven through the historical method.

The second you are a believer in God already affirms that point. So, not everything has to be proven by historical record

A, historical record B. I'm not shy to say that. But many Christians have compromised on that to appease secular atheists and to make the arguments a bit easier on themselves.

Secondly, the historical references that you bring up still affirm my point. The Qur 'an says,

Jesus, it was made to appear like Jesus. They thought it was Jesus. So, when you tell me people are writing about Jesus on the cross,

I tell you that's what the Qur 'an says. They thought. And as I said in my presentation, in my presentation,

I said, if you can bring me a huge amount of people who didn't believe that Jesus was on the cross, that proves the

Qur 'an wrong. So, when you're trying to be a bit humorous on that, I already addressed that in my first point.

Secondly, back to the resurrection account, because this is very interesting, because we actually have a first century source.

Some date it as early as the time of Paul, it's called the Didache. Now, this ancient source says nothing about resurrection.

And this source is dated to the same time as Paul. And it was accepted by early

Christians. And before you want to argue, it's not an Gnostic text. It was an Gnostic text.

So, that's the first century report that casts major doubt on your supposed resurrection.

In fact, the Eucharist, I'm sure you all know about the Eucharist. In the Didache, the

Eucharist says nothing about Jesus dying for your sin. In fact, here's something even more interesting.

In the Eucharist account in the Gospel of Luke, we have a variant manuscript that talks about the

Eucharist, which also says nothing about Jesus dying for your sin.

That this blood is for the new covenant. Now, this again, casts major doubt on your supposed resurrection accounts, which simply go back to my first contention that all of these resurrection accounts are doubtful, contradictory, and I'll say it bluntly, they're made up.

And how do we know they're made up? All these contradictions prove it. And what further evidence do we need?

We have first century documents that prove it. And we even have a variant manuscript of Luke that proves it as well.

And why is that important to my case? Because if I can show that no resurrection took place, then it means that Jesus never rose from the dead.

And if Jesus never rose from the dead, it means He never died. And the Quran is right to say He never died.

Follow along. So I'm being very consistent. And you still didn't address the point.

Did they see Him in Galilee first? Or Jerusalem? Please answer that point.

And another inconsistency I'd like to point out. You mock. You tried to mock

Islam. And you all giggled. And He said, the Quran says that the Jews said we killed the

Messiah. Yet you never addressed the point where your own Bible says the Jews killed the Messiah.

Where did Jews kill Him? You didn't address your own Gospels where it says they called Him the King of the

Jews. So if you're going to giggle, giggle at your own text for consistency. And then the other point he makes.

Well, how did Jesus never tell His disciples He was alive? How did He let them go on with this false belief?

I've already proved He did with the apocalyptic teachings. He let them go. And He let them teach these false apocalyptic teachings which mainstream scholars like Bart Ehrman, E .P.

Sanders, Paul Frederickson, Giza Gervas, and the list goes on. And if you want to compare these scholars to Robert Spencer who can't even read

Arabic. Two year old children can read better Arabic than him. To even think that this man is comparative to these men is a joke.

These men, they read the Bible, they read the Hebrew, they read the Greek. So it's an insult to compare those two.

At the end of the day, Islam is clear. It says that Jesus was saved. That's how He truly conquered death.

And that's why it's Good Friday. Because the Messiah was saved and He will come back. Thank you. Alright, well

I would like to thank all of you for coming this evening for this very spirited debate. And as it's become a traditional one,

I especially want to thank Sandy for being here this evening. I think this has been a very valuable debate. I've been wanting to do this subject.

And like I said, every time I engage this, I end up debating with a Muslim who didn't actually believe in the normative

Muslim perspective. So I appreciate that. I did bring, I think, a very important one that I would recommend to everybody.

A book called Reinventing Jesus. How Contemporary Skeptics Missed the Real Jesus in this Lead Popular Culture. A lot about Hart Urban and those guys in here.

From good scholars including Dan Wallace. I'd like to give that to Sandy. This thing needs to be proven historically.

I firmly agree with that. I firmly agree with that. That's why I reject

Hart Urban's rejection of the Resurrection. Because he thinks it does. And that's the whole problem. I'm not saying

I don't need to become materialist in any way, shape, or form. But you see, God is the

God of history. And He acts in time. And the events of Jesus' life took place.

That's one of the major differences between the Jesus of the Bible and Jesus of the Koran. There's only one time in the Koran that Jesus speaks in a historically verified place.

And that's from His cradle. Other than that, He's just a dissipating voice just floating around. In the

New Testament, you see God acting in time in the days of this. When this person was governed, at this place, this took place.

The point is, unlike all the pagan religions, God acted in time. In the fullness of time,

God sent forth His Son. And so that's why it is important. Because this is a historical teaching.

This is a historical element that the Koran comes along, and without even trying to provide an argument, without even understanding the message of the

New Testament, denies. And that's why all the questions that haven't been answered other than saying, well, that's just the way it is, are so very important for us to see.

The question I've never heard that did take place in the days of Paul is as early as late 1st century.

And it's nothing but a manual. It is not a summary of the Gospel. It is a disciplinary manual.

The idea that that somehow, that's the term, throws major doubt on the resurrection. I've never met any historian who's ever read the

Didachea. Never. I've read the Didachea. I've taught on the Didachea. I've taught the development of Christian theology.

We translated the Didachea. The idea that that somehow casts major doubt or a textual variant, a textual variant that, again, we've lectured on these things, this somehow casts major doubt, notwithstanding it doesn't, not if you would apply the same standards to your examination of the

New Testament that you do to the Koran. It would cast no doubt at all.

It also would help you to understand that there was 40 days which you reject, but there was 40 days in which

Jesus gave history to his disciples and it took place in 200 places. And Matthew and Luke give us different narratives of when those meetings took place.

Take the time. Stop reading Barnard and go find someone who might, who has the same level of faith in the text of the

Bible you happen to put on. You don't have to accept what he says, but wouldn't it be refreshing to actually read what someone says and believes?

Their faith? And is a supernaturalist a theist? And see if they cannot harmonize these events.

That might be a really good thing to do. By the way, the only person this evening who mentioned

Robert Spencer was Samuel Zapata. I never mentioned him. Did you think I mentioned him? I was talking about the following work.

Uh, Spencer's book is about a man, not that one. I was talking about the, you know the Channel 4 BBC play?

What was it called? The Origins of Islam or whatever it was. That's what I was talking about. I never mentioned Spencer. And I never connected anyone to him.

So, what do we have to see? Basically, what has been said was, well, if Sir Robert Spencer was true, then history would say that someone was crucified.

But history doesn't say someone was crucified. History says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

And all of his disciples say he was crucified. And they all say that they encountered him and that he had the wound prints in his hands and his side.

And he taught them about the resurrection. And he taught them about the prophecies that were fulfilled in him. You have to say they were all liars.

They were all deceived in their minds. They were crazy. There's no other way to explain it.

Because if Sammy's thesis is true, then Jesus met with the disciples but he didn't tell them about it because they got those

Paganintha teachings wrong. Matthew 24 is not a parallel, even though it shows you that you're misinterpreting it.

It's not a parallel to Jesus failing to tell his disciples that he wasn't crucified. So, where are those disciples that Jesus did tell?

They left America. The reality is completely different, friends. The Bible is clear. History is clear.

Jesus died and rose again. Thank you very much. Well, you've all clapped.

Let's give a hand to both of, go say to James how's it going to work. Just to let you know that an audio version of the debate will be available at ternyroadchapel .org

fairly shortly. If all things work out well out there, I think they're going to be happy. There's also a video that's been recorded and we're going to hand that over to James and we'll make ministries and they'll be making that available at their discretion when all that's made available.

I want to thank you for coming, for being an interested participant in the debate by being here and also our thanks are out to all of those.

I think there was over, well over 300 people who listened in on the debate through the live stream.

We're very grateful for those who have taken the time out and the interest in this debate and being able to spend it here with us.