Crucifixion Debate, 2nd Rebuttal

Remind us that that is the topic. Because we just saw what I would call the kitchen sink defense.

Throw everything out there. Let's talk about the subject of the later debate. The New Testament texts.

Let's talk about Roman Catholicism. Let's talk about every subject of the planet. But those of you who are following carefully and you're doing what you should do in a debate and you're following the presentations, this debate is over.

Because my positive presentation has been untouched. The only thing we've been given is, well, it just doesn't mean that.

Well, that's not what you do in a scholarly debate. You demonstrate your point, not by scrolling through your website, but by actually providing solid scholarly documentation.

We've been given none of that. He said I skipped the assertion that Jesus was raised up. And the psalms passed, that he would be delivered.

I didn't. In my opening statement, I pointed out that in Hebrews chapter 5, when it says he would be delivered from death, he was by resurrection.

That is the consistent contextual reading of those texts. He insists that Young's literal translation says grave.

Yes, kever is two words before moth. You've just got the wrong word. If you won't admit it, do you read

Hebrew, sir? I teach it. And you're wrong. If I was wrong about an Arabic word,

I would accept the correction. But the text is right there and it's right in front of us. And he's wrong.

I think he needs to admit that he's wrong. You misread it and move on from there. He said that my reference to the sign of Jonah, Matthew 12, says that that's a forgery right there.

So, in other words, if my understanding contextually in the original context, New Testament differs from what has been given to him by Islam removed completely from the context,

New Testament, then that means the text I'm citing is a forgery. I want you all to see where this kind of terminology and language is coming from.

What's the lens? The lens is the Quran. And it disagrees with my understanding of the Quran, must be a forgery. Do I need to have any historical evidence of that?

Don't need to have any at all. That's just the way things are and go from there. That's not rational.

And that demonstrates the reality of our debate today. He said, show me anywhere where anyone is referred to as Yahweh.

I did. I'll use another one. As I pointed you to Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 through 12, direct citation from Psalm 102, 25 through 27.

How about another one? John 12, 39. Jesus quotes from Isaiah 6, the temple vision of Isaiah.

And he said these things Isaiah said because he spoke about him and saw his glory.

The only him in the context of Jesus. According to the gospel of John, Isaiah saw

Jesus's glory. Go back to Isaiah 6. Who did Isaiah see? He saw Yahweh sitting upon the throne.

There you go. Challenge has been fulfilled. He says the Bible doesn't say that Jesus created all things.

That's why Paul said in Colossians 1, 15 through 17, after describing him as the firstborn, the ruler over all creations, for by him were all things created, whether in heaven and earth, visible or invisible, principalities, powers, dominions or authorities.

All things created by him and for him. And he is before all things. And in him, all things hold together.

That's why the Bible says that. Says it in John 1, says it in Hebrews 1, says it throughout the

New Testament. Again, point refuted. He says worship means only to bow down.

Doesn't mean anything at all. Well, proskuneo can mean to bow down. But in a religious context, it means to worship.

Besides that, when Jesus identifies himself as the son of man, the son of man receives latruo, which is the highest form of worship, which doesn't just mean to bow down.

Point refuted. He then used, amazingly, the my

God defense, that what Thomas was doing when Jesus appears, he goes, my Lord, my God, I'm sorry.

That is undoubtedly the weakest defense. I honestly, I would never use that kind of reasoning in dealing with Islam.

I want to show Muslims enough respect. And I want to show their texts enough respect to not mistreat them in that way.

He said the I am texts are an altered text. Were we given any information as to why this is an altered text? How about some manuscripts?

How about some meaningful argumentation there? Instead, he goes to a Catholic source and says, all ancient texts have been changed.

Read the Catholic source. They would include the Quran in that. And I wonder if he would accept that. Does he accept the Quran has been altered and changed?

If not, then he can't use that source. And that's the subject of our later debate. And I hope, given what

I'm going to present in that, that he has something more than what is presented here. Because that kind of argumentation is not going to get very far in a scholarly debate on this subject.

He mentioned Matthew 27, 52. That people were resurrected. Where are the testimonies about these people who were resurrected?

What an incredible historiography. Anything you mention in a historical source has to have multiple external attestation to be true.

Isn't there a little problem there? Isn't the Quran one person's writing? So where's all the multiple attestation of everything in the

Quran? If we're consistent, then he'd have to reject everything in the Quran as well. But obviously he's not going to do that.

Remember what I said before. Who's going to be consistent? Who's going to use double standards? So far, double standards have been documented very, very clearly.

He mentions anonymous authors. Yes, there are anonymous authors. The Old Testament has a number of books that we don't know who wrote.

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. Why is that an issue? I don't know. But one thing I can tell you, let me give you an argument from the

Quran. That the argumentation, all that stuff about attacking the text in the New Testament. Saying it's been changed.

Saying it's been altered. Is not what the original Muslims believed. Here's the argument from the Quran. Surah 5, 47 -48.

In their footsteps we send Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. Notice Jesus confirmed the law that had come before him.

We know what the Old Testament read in the days of Jesus. It's called the Dead Sea Scrolls. We know exactly what it read. And it's exactly what we read today.

So if Jesus confirmed that, we know what he confirmed. And we know we have it. No question about it. We sent him the gospel.

Therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him. And guidance and admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the gospel judge by what

Allah hath revealed therein. How can we judge? How could the people in the days of Muhammad judge

Muhammad that was contained in the gospel if they didn't have it? And if they have it, we know exactly what they have.

Because we have entire copies of the Bible in Greece that predate Muhammad by 300 years. So all this stuff about, oh it's all been altered and all this stuff been taken in and taken out, is a completely bogus argument that can be documented to be a completely bogus argument.

Surah 4136 says, O ye who believe, believe in Allah and his apostle and the scriptures which he hath sent to his apostle and the scripture which he sent to those before him, and who denieth

Allah, his angels, his books, plural, his apostles in the day of judgment hath gone far astray.

Allah has revealed books according to the Quran. Why don't the Muslims have books? They only have one.

The reason they have only one is because they've now decided the other ones were corrupt. Why? Because once Islam began to grow, they began to realize, oops, our book is inconsistent with the other books.

And there is the problem. There's more I can say on that, but I did want to get to just a couple of other things. He said

Theophilus, for example, is from the 2nd or 4th century. Theophilus is a common word that means lover of God.

How you can know, we have manuscripts of Luke, we have fragments of Luke from the 2nd century.

The idea this makes Luke 2nd or 4th century is again, from a scholarly perspective, utterly absurd.

Then he wanted to point out, and evidently he didn't hear that I pointed this out before, remember he was trying to prove, well, there's these texts and they have these second narrations, and so since these books mention their authors, they can't be real.

Then he quotes from John. John had not yet been cast in prison. Let me try this, maybe I went through it too fast.

John the Baptist is not John the Apostle who wrote the book. There's a different John. There's more

Johns in the New Testament. There's Pauls, and things like Jameses, and there's multiple

Jameses, there's like five different Marys. Again, simple, basic level error that needs to be corrected.

I was then asked, all these other sources, Ignatius of Antioch. I don't get the feeling that my opponent has ever read

Ignatius of Antioch. Doesn't know anything about the background of the text. He says, well, did they see Jesus get crucified?

Well, here's a new historical paradigm. That every historical text to have relevance must be written by an eyewitness.

What would happen with the entirety of the Hadith if you applied this standard to that?

Did anyone, did Sahih al -Bukhari see people say those words? Of course not.

Well, if he's going to be consistent, he just had to reject all of the Hadith literature of Islam.

Does he do that? Of course he doesn't do that. Why? Because of double standards. The application of double standards is the surest demonstration that you have lost the position.

And you have lost the debate. No, they did not see Jesus get crucified. But they are first century testimonies to the fact that those who try to say that the crucifixion has been made up by Paul or made up by someone else.

And then inserting the religion need to have something better to prove their point with.

And just simply saying, well, somebody who claimed to be a prophet 600 years later said so.

I think what we've seen today is that everything I said at the beginning has come true.

Reliance upon Gnosticism, circular reasoning, the utilization of a source from 600 years later that has no meaning in historical context to first century

Jerusalem. All these things are the substance of the argumentation put forward. And since those arguments fail, then the crucifixion has been successfully demonstrated.

you. .