Was Jesus Crucified? Part 2

Now that you know what the issues are, very clearly, as James gave them, they'll be looking at one another's arguments and taking time, each of them, to bolster their points by bringing the vote to their opponent.

So Sammy's going to speak first, and then James will follow me and get your act. Thank you for that presentation.

It should be fun. But there's a lot of points to respond to, so I tried to get them all.

I've listed them all in order. Now the first point about the pagan sacrifices is different, because Jesus voluntarily did it on his own.

He stood up, he wasn't forced to do it, and so forth. First of all, not all ancient pagan sacrifices were by force.

But even assuming that all historical sacrifices, human sacrifices, were done by force, it doesn't change the fact that this is still a human sacrifice.

So whether they were doing it by force, and Jesus is more pure than that, it doesn't change the main point that it's still a human sacrifice.

Then the second point about Jesus being on the cross is about perfect righteousness. Now that's the best way to get it told, righteousness.

I argue that it isn't, because all you're doing is transferring your sin onto an innocent man.

So in essence, you're not taking responsibility, you're just blaming somebody else.

That would be like me going to court and telling the judge, judge, I accept this person to take my crime, and then the judge says, well now you're good for eternal salvation.

That doesn't sound just to me. The third point was about scholarship affirms

Jesus' death in large numbers, and then you even have the historical sources, such as the early

Christian writings, and even Josephus, who wasn't a Christian, and then Clement, and so forth.

As I already addressed that in my opening, those points don't hurt the Islamic position, because Islam does not deny the historical event.

It denies that it was Jesus on the cross. So if you tell me people are saying that it was Jesus on the cross, that's what the

Qur 'an says. It was made to appear to them. So therefore, that's what I would logically expect.

Then James brought up the point about, what does the Qur 'an say? The Qur 'an says that the

Jews were going around saying they killed the Messiah, but the Jews don't believe that he was the

Messiah, and everybody started giggling about that. When they said they killed the

Messiah, they were doing this in jest, mocking him. They weren't actually serious about it.

In fact, let's now be consistent. If you want to giggle at that, you're going to have to giggle at your own

Gospels, because according to Mark, chapter 15, verse 13, not only did they crucify him, they called him the

King of Jews. That was the title on the cross, supposedly. The King of Jews.

And there are so many other references where they made all of these mocking. So if it's okay for the

Bible to say that, why don't you grant the same response to the Qur 'an?

Inconsistency. And then the point about the Jews didn't kill Jesus, it was the

Romans. I suggest you go read 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 14 to 16.

It says the Jews were responsible for his death. That's what it says, not me.

Then what about the point that the only reason we Muslims don't believe in the crucifixion of Jesus is because of 30

Arabic words? Well, there's many things you, the Christians, believe in that nobody else believes in because of your own

Bible. So that's not really an argument. In fact, think of this. If the prophet

Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a false prophet, and he was trying to trick all of you, wouldn't it make more sense to confirm a teaching that is so widely accepted rather than go against it?

Why wouldn't he simply do the easy thing and say, yeah, Jesus died on the cross? Why say something completely opposite?

It would be much more easier for him to simply go with that belief.

But nonetheless, exactly, just because we believe in it because of our Quran, doesn't mean anything.

And yes, we do believe it because we believe the Quran is the truth. And that's a whole separate debate for me to show that.

But just like you believe in things that nobody else believes in because of your Bible. And there are so many things that you believe in which are just historically wrong, scientifically wrong, that nobody believes in.

For instance, young earth creationists. People say, well, they're crazy, but actually they're consistent because they've looked at all the time frames of the

Bible and have come to that conclusion. So, you can believe the earth is 6 ,000 years old.

We know nobody believes that, but if you read the Bible properly, it says that. And so, they are consistent.

Now, what about what happened to Jesus according to the Quran? Can you explain what exactly happened on the cross?

Because there's no authentic Islamic interpretation about Surah 4, verse 157.

I mean, who was on the cross instead? How was he saved? Was he saved on the cross? Was he saved before the cross?

And so forth. Those points are all irrelevant. And the reason being is because the

Quran tells us the main relevant point, that it wasn't Jesus and that he survived. That's all

I need to know. Everything else is just trying to be picky and just arguing for the sake of argument.

On these main points, there is no debate. Jesus was on the cross. Jesus was not on the cross.

And he did not die. And I find it ironic. James White says that there's so many contradictory interpretations of what exactly happened.

Contradictory interpretations, not contradictory verses. But think about the argument.

James White and many people in the audience might think that that's an argument. Well, this scholar says that, and that scholar says that.

Isn't that a problem? What about the contradictions in your own Bible about the story?

Forget about interpretations. Your own Bible has contradictions about the very same story.

So, if you have problems with contradictions between interpretations, and there are very many, then

I think you'd have more problems with contradictions in your own holy Bible about the story.

And I wrote all the contradictions. I don't need to repeat them. Inconsistency.

So, that point is out of the way. Now, what about the point, Jesus came to his disciples.

Why did he tell them, I'm alive, I never died. Hey, I'm not Judas. First of all, Islam never says it was

Judas. So, that's a strong matter. The Quran never says that. No, it says that. So, why would he say that?

And then James says, well, he was with them for 40 days. Now, that's your belief, not mine.

There's no actual proof that he was with them for 40 days. In fact, according to the

Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest Gospel, which ends in verse 13, the rest has been added.

And if you take away the ending of Mark's Gospel, it says nothing about the disciples seeing the resurrected

Jesus. The earliest Gospel has nothing about a resurrected Jesus. And it's an accepted academic fact.

You can choose to reject it, but that's academia. It's a consensus that the ending of Mark, which talks about the post -appearances of Jesus, have all been added to it.

And that actually proves my point in my presentation. In my presentation, I said the resurrection accounts have no basis.

They were simply making these things up. The ending of Mark proves that. They literally made it up and put it in there.

And it goes to the other point. The woman came to the tomb and they saw a resurrected Jesus. You know,

Mary. I don't have to believe that. There's actually no strong evidence for that to be authentic.

What's the basis of that? I'm not simply saying I don't believe in it because I don't like it. I don't believe in it because they're full of contradictions of that account, which tells me that something's up.

And that's for Jesus. Why didn't He tell them, hey, I'm alive? Maybe He did. Who said

He stayed with them for 40 days? I never said He stayed with them for 40 days. His post -appearance could have been a single appearance where He told them,

I'm alive, and now go do this. And they still could have misunderstood it. There's absolutely no proof beyond shadow of a doubt that He was with them for 40 days and telling them to look at His wounds and what have you.

And as for the woman who saw Jesus on the cross, actually, the Gospels say they saw it from afar.

And so that point is out of the way. Now, what about the Quranic verse that talks about Jesus' death?

Surah 19, verse 33, where Jesus said, Peace on me the day I'm born, the day

I die, and so forth. Which is like what John says in the Quran. Very simple.

Jesus is talking about the day He will die. He hasn't died yet. He's talking about the future event when

He will die. We Muslims don't believe that Jesus is immortal. We believe He will eventually die.

If I want to pee right now and say peace on me while I'm alive, peace on me the day I'm dead, does that mean

I'm a ghost right now speaking to you? No, it means I'm talking about a future event that will take place.

And yes, Jesus will die one day. And that's what the Quranic verse is talking about.

And that's what all Muslims believe. And then there was a last point.

Jesus' death is all over the Jewish Bible. And why don't the

Jews believe it? Well, the early disciples were Jews, and they believed in Jesus' death and resurrection.

Actually, if you read the Gospel accounts, supposing that they're authentic accounts, the disciples were shocked by Jesus' death.

And they were surprised and doubtful of His resurrection. A resurrection, by the way, that's nowhere in Mark.

These are the later Gospels which talk about the post -appearances. Now ask yourself, why would the disciples be surprised about Jesus dying and rising from the dead if He clearly taught it to them, according to the

Gospels, and if the Old Testament clearly taught it? Did they just get mass amnesia?

Did they just forget that? When Jesus clearly told them, I will die and rise in three days, if you expect me, and everything happens as He supposedly says, why are they still surprised?

He told them. The Old Testament prophesied it, but they're still doubtful.

They're still sad. The consistent answer to that, the reason why they were sad, the reason why they were surprised, the reason why they never expected it, is because it was never taught.

That way, it comes together, and there's no contradictions. So, I believe those were all of His points, and there's nothing much more to add.