Shadid Lewis and Swma Again

You may recall just a few weeks ago, we took the time to demonstrate why the argument presented by Michael Bajent and then uncritically repeated by Shadid Lewis in a debate in Norfolk just a few weeks ago was completely bogus, that it requires you to completely disregard the text of the New Testament, to cut it up into little pieces, ignore the plain statements of the text that Jesus had died, and that Bajent was doing this because he promotes Gnosticism and that Shadid Lewis is doing this because he promotes Islam, and both coming after the time of the New Testament, and of course demonstrating that Shadid Lewis would never allow anyone to treat the text of the Quran in this way, to grossly just completely ignore meanings of words and usages and context and the plain statements of the text.

He would never let anybody get away with that, but that's what he does in the New Testament, and it is that kind of activity seen in all Islamic apologists, all of them, without exception that I have encountered so far, use one standard when defending the Quran and another standard when attacking the New Testament.

This is the refutation of Islam. Until Islamic apologists can come to recognize that their use of a double standard completely destroys their credibility, it destroys their arguments, they're never going to get anywhere.

They may continue to convince their own people, but if their real desire is to communicate to those of us who know our faith, they're going to get absolutely nowhere in this process. Now the argument that he presented involved the contrast between the term Soma and the term Potoma, and we documented that the two actually, the semantic domains actually overlap, and that the claim made by Bajan, repeated by Shadid, and then put into his own words by Shadid Lewis, that Soma was clearly indicating that Joseph of Arimathea was actually asking for a living body.

We demonstrated that was a completely bogus argument, but unfortunately Shadid just simply will not admit his mistake, and so he has continued to try to defend his mistake. In another video that he's posted, let's take a look at something he said.

Again, this whole series of video debates has been about his claim and his allegation against me that I used the Greek word Soma wrongly, claiming that I said that it can only mean a living body. Here's what he says in the comment section, and he also tried to accuse me of that during the intermission of the debate, that I used Soma only for a living body, and that is incorrect.

Now, we've already refuted Bajan's argument. We've already demonstrated that there is no argument as long as you recognize that Soma can mean a dead body. The whole reason that Shadid raised this was to try to produce the idea that Joseph was asking for a living body.

We've already documented all this. There's no reason to go back over it. I think any rational person already knows what the facts are, but what's amazing is that Shadid then tries to defend not the distinction, the rock-ribbed distinction that Bajan's entire argument requires, that Soma is only a living body and Potomac is only a dead body.

It's the only way that argument makes any sense, and that's how he did use it in the debate. Anyone who's watched it and listened to it knows I'm speaking the truth. They don't even have to argue any more about that.

It's just facts are facts. Watch it. Listen. It's very clear. But listen to what he now tries to do. This is a common tactic when someone has completely lost an argument, but they absolutely refuse to admit that they've lost the argument.

The Meaning of Soma in the Debate Over Jesus' Body

Jesus, Cross, and Cosmos by Donovan Bessinger. We see that again the word Soma is used again, as it says here, the word Soma. In Homer's time that was used for a dead body, but in the classical and New Testament periods, Soma usually means living body.

So what do you do when you can't go to meaningful lexicons and substantiate your position? Well, here we've gone to another source, and I'm not even going to bother to question the source. Just look at what is actually said.

In this time period, in what? In the New Testament? Outside the New Testament? Secular writings? Where? You determine the meaning of a word based upon its usage in a context. In a context, Mr. Lewis. And what was the context of the use of Soma in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

It is in the context of the death of Jesus. In each instance, look at Matthew 27, look at Mark 15, look at Luke 23, look at John 19, what have they all said just happened? That Jesus swooned on the cross?

No, they've all said the same thing, that Jesus gave up his spirit, he breathed his last, the centurion had just documented to Pilate that he had died, etc., etc. And so, to define a word without looking at its immediate context, which in this context is all about the death of Jesus, is to once again demonstrate that you do not have the beginnings of a meaningful scholarly argument.

You simply refuse to accept the facts that are before you, and why? Because your religion tells you to. Your religion is ahistorical. Your religion contains one citation, one verse, that has spawned all sorts of interpretations.

It is not mubinun, it is not clear in its meaning at all. I, of course, refer to Surah 4, verse 157. There's all sorts of different interpretations to it. And you take that one verse, written 600 years after the events, and use that as your license, even though you have no interpretation of it from Muhammad in the Hadith, you take that as your license to completely destroy the text of the New Testament and ignore the plain meaning of the words right there in front of you.

That's another reason why this kind of Islam is repelling to anyone who wants to have a meaningful, truthful argument in substantiation of their faith. Obviously, the only argument I've made is that Soma's semantic domain includes both living body and dead body, and that because it does, Bajan's argument collapses, because Bajan's argument, presented by Shadid Lewis uncritically in the debate, requires that the two words have no overlapping syntactical area.

That's the fact. Anyone can see this. Mr. Lewis, you just need to admit you blew it. And now by trying to defend it, you're only making yourself look worse and worse. This is the kind of stuff that I've tried to explain to you, completely destroys your credibility and makes people go, why is he arguing like this?

Why won't he actually deal with the facts? Why is he trying to dig all the rest of this stuff up? It's the sure sign of a failed argument.