Methodolgy and Sources

Methodology and Earliest Sources in the Resurrection Debate

All right, Ollie, I have a quick question about methodology, because I think it relates tonight's debate to your debate with Mike Licona. In your debate with Mike Licona, Mike was trying to defend the Resurrection and he immediately went to the earliest possible source material, which is found in 1 Corinthians, and he built his case based solely upon the earliest possible material that he could find, while you went to sources like the Gnostic Gospels, which are anywhere from 120 to 250 years after the material he was using, and tonight I've gone to our earliest biography for information about Muhammad, and you're acting like I'm just making a huge mistake, but I want to focus on something specific.

Hadith, Intention, and Claims About Muhammad

You say that Muhammad never raised his hand against a woman, and that this shows that Muhammad was, well, this makes Muhammad good, but in Sahih Muslim, Aisha specifically says that Muhammad hit her in her chest and caused her pain, and I'm just wondering, as far as methodology goes, I see you sort of picking and choosing your sources rather than just going for what the sources say, and if a source like Sahih Muslim says that Muhammad hit Aisha in her chest, and you say Muhammad never raised his hand to a woman, who should I believe?

Should I believe Sahih Siddak and Aisha, or should I believe you? I'd have to see this alleged hadith. You'd have to quote it to me and show it to me. I know of no such hadith. Regarding my methodology, if you recall my debate with Mr. Lacona, I did quote extra biblical material such as Nag Hammadi Library and so on and so forth, but according to many Christian scholars and objective scholars, Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. Elaine Pagels, they say the Gospel of Thomas predates the Gospel of John, that the Gospel of John was written as a reaction to the Gospel of Thomas.

Mr. Reckoning, would you like to add anything? Okay, I'll deal with this in a minute here. But I also quoted stuff from the Q Source document, which Matthew and Luke had access to, right? And the Gospel in Galatia at the time.

The Earliest Writings and the Absence of First-Century Pagan Sources

This is pre-Pauline. This is before Paul's letters, right? Now, regarding the other things we mentioned about the earliest source material, there are no pagan sources from the first century that even mention Jesus.

There's one Jewish source that mentions Jesus from the first century. These are the earliest writings. Where are the earliest writings? The earliest writings were done by Jews. They were done by Jews.

And there's no Jewish Christian sources that are left. They've all been lost. They've been destroyed by Trinitarian Christians. So regarding this Hadith, he struck me on the chest which caused me pain, again, this is looking at this on a surface level.

Was that his intention? Did he want to hurt his wife? What does she say about him? This is what she says in all six books of Hadith. He never returned an evil for an evil. He was never unjust. This is what she says.

Now, he shows me a Hadith where he struck her on the chest. One time, another time, during the Battle of Badr, there was a man in the first line and the prophet took an arrow and just jabbed him in the chest a little bit to move him back.

And the man said, you hurt me. And the prophet said, that was not my intention, right? And the man said, I want my requital. So the prophet spread his chest and said, you can take it. And the man jumped and he leapt and he kissed the chest of the prophet and he said, I just wanted to kiss you, right?

Surface Readings Versus Contextual Interpretation of Sources

We have to look at what was his intention. Our scholars have looked at all of these Hadith. Just looking at something on the surface level, I can do the same thing with a Bible. I look at something on the surface level.

I've come to bring a sword, right? Jesus, Matthew 10, 34. What's up with that sword? The Christian will say, no, no, no, you stupid Muslim. This is an allegory. This is, you know, he's symbolical. Just because it says sword, just because it says strike, doesn't mean strike.

Our scholars have looked at these things in detail. They've looked at the Arabic. They've done cross-references with thousands of other Hadith. They don't just say, okay, it says this, so therefore that's what it means, right?

So again, this is Mr. Wood just looking at things at a superficial level, at a surface level, and drawing his own erroneous conclusions to them. I can do the very same thing to his sources as well.