January 24, 2012 (7:12 PM)- http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/01/does-quran-claim-that-bible-has-been.html
January 25, 2012 (7:35 AM)- http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4953
January 25, 2012 (1:07 PM)- http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/quran-never-says-text-of-bible-was.html
[Link to YouTube for alternate access to the above, and the rest of the videos in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY]
This series was uploaded to YouTube via the website: EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S UNCHANGING WORD. This site (IMHO) is by far, one of the more charitable, non-inflammatory, anti-Islamic apologetic sites I have encountered. And unlike so many other anti-Islamic apologetic sites, at least one of the main contributors, Faouzi "David" Arzouni, is actually fluent in Arabic (link to bio).
The series of videos, and related articles, on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an produced by EFGUW reflect my own position on the matter. I would urge anyone interested in this subject (including Muslims) to read through the material with an open mind, keeping in mind, there have been faithful Muslims who are in agreement with the assessment that the corruption spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to the INTERPRETATION, rather than the TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION of the Bible. (See THIS THREAD for an excellent, and balanced, book that touches on this subject.)
In addition to the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, EFGUW has also weighed in on another topic of interest to me—Surah 4.157 and the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ—Did Jesus Die on the Cross?
Readers of this blog should be aware of my keen interest in this subject. For those not familiar with my take on this very important issue, I recommend the following threads:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/recent-interest-in-surah-4157.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html
Now, it is more than just a bit interesting that while ALL three of the above websites which linked to EFGUW series of videos on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an with glowing support, they in turn REJECT EFGUW's conclusions concerning Surah 4.157 !!! This is yet another example of the inconsistency, and poor methodology, that permeates much of the Evangelical online apologetic world. The methodology (i.e. Qur'anic exegesis based on pre-polemical interpretation, showing agreement between the Bible and the Qur'an) that EFGUW employed to reach it's conclusions concerning the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.
It sure seems to me that if one is going to endorse EFGUW's reflections concerning the Bible's status in the Qur'an, they had better accept their assessment of Surah 4.157, for if one rejects the latter, the former's credibility becomes damaged beyond repair.
Grace and peace,
David
47 comments:
is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.
The methodology is not the same -
The Qur'an clearly affirms and confirms the Bible.
(2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94; 29:46)
But the Qur'an clearly denies the crucifixion and death of jesus in one verse ( 4:157) and yet implies that He did die in 2 others (3:55; 19:33)
So, you have a lot of explaining to do to demonstrate that the methodologies are the same.
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
David a very happy new year to you! Very interesting.
Allah-willing I will be publishing an exchange that I had with David Woods via e-mail. (One in which he in my estimation he retreated from). That is neither here or there, as I will leave it to the reader to decide.
Nonetheless I feel it would be immensely valuable to the on going discussion between Muslims and Christians, if the Christian side could tell the readers what they understand the Qur'an to mean by 'Injeel' 'Taurat' and 'Zabur' and 'Suhuf'.
For example more often than not I think it is counter productive to assume that Injeel means the 22 books of the New Testament. I believe that sincere and honest Christians (or more appropriately those who are knowledgeable) know that the word Gospel itself does not equate to 22 books of the New Testament.
I believe that trying to equate taurat with the entirety of the tanach in any tradition (Greek, Catholic, Protestant, or Ethiopian etc..) is also counter productive to the discussion.
In fact for that matter, it would be interesting if we can understand exactly what does the Qur'an mean it says the word 'Christian'.
Just who and what were the Christians that the Qur'an seems to engage?
Go ask the people of the book for example, so should I go and ask the Jews what they think about a Crucified Messiah?
I think these are important issues if the conversation is to be meaningful and productive and not simply descend into polemic at all cost.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; you posted:
==is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.
The methodology is not the same -
The Qur'an clearly affirms and confirms the Bible.
(2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94; 29:46)
But the Qur'an clearly denies the crucifixion and death of jesus in one verse ( 4:157) and yet implies that He did die in 2 others (3:55; 19:33)
So, you have a lot of explaining to do to demonstrate that the methodologies are the same.==
Me: ??? I believe that you are confusing conclusions with method here. The method utilized by the folk at Evidence For God's Unchanging Word is as follows:
First, cite the relevant ayat pertaining to the topic at hand—i.e the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, and death and crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an.
Second, exegete those passages in light of what the Bible says on those topics, and supply support from Muslims who are in agreement with their exegesis.
The EFGUW folk do the same for both topics Ken; their method is the same. You like one of their conclusions, but hold a certain disdain for the second, however, EFGUW's method was the same for both.
Further, it is not just the folk at EFGUW who have employed this method; I have given numerous examples now from a very diverse group of individuals that includes Christian pastors in Muslim lands, Christian Islamic scholars, Muslim Islamic scholars, and a Baha'i Islamic scholar. What I find more than interesting is that pretty much everyone but YOU believes that Surah 4.157 is a highly ambiguous ayah, while YOU maintain that it is CLEAR. Sorry Ken, but I am siding with the Islamic scholars who are fluent in Arabic on this one.
QUESTION: Did you actually read the material I linked to in my Recent interest in Surah 4.157 thread?
I would like to suggest to you that you review/critique the lengthy essays produced 'A Christian Thinktank', and that of Dr. Gabriel Reynolds, comparing what they have written with that of EFGUW folk.
Grace and peace,
David
Well hello GV19,
What a pleasant surprise! So good to see you back at AF. In your first post you wrote:
==Allah-willing I will be publishing an exchange that I had with David Woods via e-mail. (One in which he in my estimation he retreated from). That is neither here or there, as I will leave it to the reader to decide.
Nonetheless I feel it would be immensely valuable to the on going discussion between Muslims and Christians, if the Christian side could tell the readers what they understand the Qur'an to mean by 'Injeel' 'Taurat' and 'Zabur' and 'Suhuf'.==
Me: Looking forward to it GV19; please let me know when you have put it up!
==For example more often than not I think it is counter productive to assume that Injeel means the 22 books of the New Testament. I believe that sincere and honest Christians (or more appropriately those who are knowledgeable) know that the word Gospel itself does not equate to 22 books of the New Testament.==
Me: First, I think you meant "the 27 books of the New Testament". Second, I think you raise an important issue here. From my reading experience, the is a considerable amount of diversity among Christians (both historically and in the present) on topic.
==I believe that trying to equate taurat with the entirety of the tanach in any tradition (Greek, Catholic, Protestant, or Ethiopian etc..) is also counter productive to the discussion.==
Me: Good point; does your dialogue with David Wood touch on this issue?
In your second comment you penned:
==In fact for that matter, it would be interesting if we can understand exactly what does the Qur'an mean it says the word 'Christian'.
Just who and what were the Christians that the Qur'an seems to engage?==
Me: Excellent question! Given the diversity of Christian sects in the early 7th century (over 100), I too am now quite interested in exactly what the Qur'an meant by 'Christians'.
==Go ask the people of the book for example, so should I go and ask the Jews what they think about a Crucified Messiah?
I think these are important issues if the conversation is to be meaningful and productive and not simply descend into polemic at all cost.==
Me: Amen!
Thanks much for you thoughtful, and charitable posts. Hope to see you back soon.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
I still say the methodology is different because in order to get Surah 4:157 to mean what you and others want it to mean, you have bring in totally unrelated verses and issues to it in other contexts and interpret "death" and "kill" and "crucify" in metaphorical terms.
Anyway,
The Grandverbalizer19 - good also to see him commenting - always interesting - it would be interesting to see what he thinks.
He thinks both sets of videos are wrong - he thinks the Qur'an does teach that the previous Scriptures are corrupt and he also thinks Jesus was not really crucified, and even wrote several articles and dismissed Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud, etc.
---
David,
Since you think it is easy to harmonize 3:55 with 4:147, what does 3:54 mean, in context?
The context of 3:54 and the deception (cunning plans and trickery) of Allah to make the Jews think they crucified Jesus, but they really didn't, makes more sense at 3:55, with the traditional and orthodox Sunni and Shiite interpretation.
(52) When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah´s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
(53) "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
(54) And (the unbelievers) schemed and deceived, and Allah too schemed/deceived/tricked, and the best of deceivers/tricksters is Allah.
[
الله خیر المکارین
مکارین from مکر = deception, trickery, ruse, scheme
خدا بهترین مکر کننده است.
(Farsi - "God is the very best deceiver/schemer/trickster."
مکر (Makr) is trickery, deception, ruse, cunning, trickery and is always used in a negative way. It is same word used in I Peter 2:22 of the Farsi translations that describes Jesus as having NO Deception or guile or trickery in his character and speach. Opposite of the character of Allah of Islam.]
(55) Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Hi Ken,
Hope you are having a great weekend! In your last post you wrote:
== I still say the methodology is different because in order to get Surah 4:157 to mean what you and others want it to mean, you have bring in totally unrelated verses and issues to it in other contexts and interpret "death" and "kill" and "crucify" in metaphorical terms.==
Me: A couple of important points on this: first, I do not think the other ayat that are usually cited when one is dealing with Surah 4.157 are "totally unrelated" at all, but rather are DIRECTLY RELATED. For instance, 4.157 is dealing with the death of Jesus, 3.55 and 19.33 are also dealing with the death of Jesus—how you can say that they are "totally unrelated", is quite baffling to me.
Second, since we are dealing with the issue of death, and how the Qur'an views death, one should determine precisely how death is described in the Qur'an (and related literature). I know of at least 2 ayat that can only be understood "in metaphorical terms"; this says to me that exegesis must at times be a bit more sophisticated than a bare, literal reading.
==Since you think it is easy to harmonize 3:55 with 4:147, what does 3:54 mean, in context?==
I think you need to read the following online essay:
Did Jesus Die on the Cross?
On pages 11-12 we read:
“I am causing you to ‘die’ [mutawaffīka],” that is, causing your literal death [mumītuka]. And this is a tradition recounted on the authority of [marwī'an] Ibn 'Abbās and Muhammad ibn Ishāq. They said: the purpose was that his Jewish enemies should not be able to kill him, so then after that he honored him by raising him to heaven. Then, there are three different senses in which they understood this: First: Wahb said, “He died [tuwuffiya] for three hours, then was raised [rufii'a].” Second: Muhammad ibn Ishāq said, “He died [tuwuffiya] for seven hours, then God restored him to life [ahyāhu] and raised him [rafa'ahu]...”
[Notice the Ibn 'Abbās is cited as an "authority", the same Ibn 'Abbās that is cited by the folk at Evidence For God's Unchanging Word!]
As for the Arabic term makara (m*k*r), Kassis, in his exhaustive Concordance of the Qur'an, gives the following definitions: "to devise, to scheme, to plot, to plan. (n. vb.) devising, a device; a plot; sly whispers or talk. (pcple. act.) a planner, deviser, plotter." (Page 762.)
So 'the plot' to get rid of Jesus forever by the 'disbelievers' was foiled by God's greater 'plan/plot'.
Once again, I cannot help but think of our Lord's words to his believers—i.e. that "everyone who lives and believe in Me shall never die"—His believers did/do die, and yet, they did/do not die; the disbelievers only acknowledge the first, outward event, and fail to discern the second great truth.
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
Me: A couple of important points on this: first, I do not think the other ayat that are usually cited when one is dealing with Surah 4.157 are "totally unrelated" at all, but rather are DIRECTLY RELATED. For instance, 4.157 is dealing with the death of Jesus, 3.55 and 19.33 are also dealing with the death of Jesus—how you can say that they are "totally unrelated", is quite baffling to me.
I did not mean those verses. I agree those 3 are related to one another, that is why I asked you about 3:54-55.
I meant the other verses that you and the commentators that you cite have brought in to try and interpret 4:157 in the exact opposite of its clear meaning - such as Surah 3:169 that says, "Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision."
I find the mental gymnastics of trying to tie that verse to the subject of 4:157 a massive stretch.
In 3:169 - they really did die physically - they died in Allah's cause - the Jihad/ Qatal / Harb - it is just saying to remember that those who physically died as hero warriors in battle - Islamic martyrs - are now alive in heaven.
That is far different than what 4:157 says -
"they did not kill him, nor crucify him . . .
"for sure (from یقین = assurance, certainty) they did not kill him.'
If it had said, "they really did kill him physically, but Allah took His spirit to heaven, so consider him alive with Allah now" - THEN, I could see your point. Otherwise, your attempt and others still seems like massive desperation to get around something clear.
"We have revealed to you a book in clear Arabic" -
something like that is written several times in the Qur'an.
Surah 3:169 is totally unrelated to 4:157.
I am pretty sure the GV19 would agree with me on this one.
"I am causing you to die" - yes - on 3:55 and 19:33 - the Muslims have a lot of explaining to do and I can see that that is a greater problem - it is a real contradiction, in my opinion, to 4:157.
However, Makr مکر is much more negative that what that Concordance lets on.
Also, if 3:55 does mean that Jesus really did die, then the plot or deception or trickery makes no sense.
Because the Jews really did plot and devise and instigate, even force Pilate and the Romans to carry out the deed.
The Jewish plots against Jesus - they even refused to execute Jesus - when Pilate said, " take Him away and judge Him according to your own law" ( John 18:31, see also John 19:6) - then later the Jews forced Pilate to crucify Him - 19:12-15 because they appealed to Caesar and said, "If you release this man, then you are no friend of Caeasar" and "we have no king but Caesar" and they brought in the fact that they under Rome were not allowed to but anyone to death, and that they were the real friends of Caesar, etc.
So, by reinterpreting the Qur'an in 4:157 and 3:54 that Allah plotted or ticked the Jews, but the Romans really did the deed, is not saying anything significant in the face of the facts of what happened in history and John 18-19; Matthew 26-27; Mark 14-15; Luke 22-23, etc.
There is no indication that just because the Romans nailed the nails into Jesus, etc. that that means that the plots and machinations of the Jews was foiled by Allah. Sorry, your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.
Now, having read Joseph Cumming's paper; I respect his research, because he honestly lays out all the options and quotes from all the differing opinions from different Islamic scholars and commentators.
That is more respectable than the way Lawson and others you referenced before who, it seems to me, tried to force it into saying something like:
"he really was crucified and died; 4:157 is only saying the Jews didn't actually nail the nails, etc. and since Jesus is alive in heaven like Islamic martyrs, then there is absolutely no contradiction between 4:157 and 3:55 and 19:33, and the Qur'an is saved from an embarrassing statement that contradicts history."
I sincerely thank you for linking to Joseph Cumming's paper - it is more helpful than any others; and at least lays out all the options that Muslims have come up with.
That is good communication.
Joseph Cumming is one of the best westerners who has learned Arabic and he knows the Muslim sources.
I know of him.
He is one of main early pioneers and practitioners of the C-5 Contextualization church planting or "Insider's Movement"
He is well known in missionary circles.
He is also the co-author of the "Loving God and Neighbor: A Yale Response to the "Common Word Between Us"
David,
No comments yet?
Here, Dr. Arzouni clearly identifies Bahai'allah as someone who wrote something and claimed it was from God and so violated Qur'an Surah 2:79
http://www.unchangingword.com/obj_quran_03baqara279.php
So, now, are you prepared to renounce your openness to the Bahai Faith ?
Hi Ken,
Just now checking in on my blog (and emails). The weather has been fantastic here the last couple of days (Spring-like), and is to continue through Sunday. I am not spending very much time indoors right now. Anyway, yesterday you posted:
==David,
No comments yet?==
Me: I honestly don't know what else I can say at this point; you reject wholesale the earliest Islamic understanding of Jesus' death (Ibn Abbas), and the diverse number of scholars and pastors who understand Surah 4.157 the way I do (including the wonderful videos and related articles produced by the folk at Evidence For God's Unchanging Word).
You also wrote:
== Here, Dr. Arzouni clearly identifies Bahai'allah as someone who wrote something and claimed it was from God and so violated Qur'an Surah 2:79
http://www.unchangingword.com/obj_quran_03baqara279.php
So, now, are you prepared to renounce your openness to the Bahai Faith ?==
Me: Thanks much for the link. I am heading out of town in just a few minutes, so I cannot review the information right now. Will try to get to it when I return.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
You didn't deal with what I wrote here -
David Waltz wrote:
Me: A couple of important points on this: first, I do not think the other ayat that are usually cited when one is dealing with Surah 4.157 are "totally unrelated" at all, but rather are DIRECTLY RELATED. For instance, 4.157 is dealing with the death of Jesus, 3.55 and 19.33 are also dealing with the death of Jesus—how you can say that they are "totally unrelated", is quite baffling to me.
I did not mean those verses. I agree those 3 are related to one another, that is why I asked you about 3:54-55.
I meant the other verses that you and the commentators that you cite have brought in to try and interpret 4:157 in the exact opposite of its clear meaning - such as Surah 3:169 that says, "Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision."
I find the mental gymnastics of trying to tie that verse to the subject of 4:157 a massive stretch.
In 3:169 - they really did die physically - they died in Allah's cause - the Jihad/ Qatal / Harb - it is just saying to remember that those who physically died as hero warriors in battle - Islamic martyrs - are now alive in heaven.
That is far different than what 4:157 says -
"they did not kill him, nor crucify him . . .
"for sure (from یقین = assurance, certainty) they did not kill him.'
If it had said, "they really did kill him physically, but Allah took His spirit to heaven, so consider him alive with Allah now" - THEN, I could see your point. Otherwise, your attempt and others still seems like massive desperation to get around something clear.
"We have revealed to you a book in clear Arabic" -
something like that is written several times in the Qur'an.
Surah 3:169 is totally unrelated to 4:157.
I am pretty sure the GV19 would agree with me on this one.
I did not see Ibn Abbas' statement in Joseph Cumming's paper on the crucifixion in Islam. I looked again; I don't see it.
I remember Ibn Abbas' being quoted on the Bible being not corrupted, but not on the crucifixion.
I didn't find it in the other paper either, by Christine Shirrmacker.
I don't want to have to struggle to find it.
Can you bring that one out?
sorry if you already did.
Good morning Ken,
Earlier today you wrote:
==I did not mean those verses. I agree those 3 are related to one another, that is why I asked you about 3:54-55.
I meant the other verses that you and the commentators that you cite have brought in to try and interpret 4:157 in the exact opposite of its clear meaning - such as Surah 3:169 that says, "Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision."
I find the mental gymnastics of trying to tie that verse to the subject of 4:157 a massive stretch.
In 3:169 - they really did die physically - they died in Allah's cause - the Jihad/ Qatal / Harb - it is just saying to remember that those who physically died as hero warriors in battle - Islamic martyrs - are now alive in heaven.
That is far different than what 4:157 says -
"they did not kill him, nor crucify him . . .
"for sure (from یقین = assurance, certainty) they did not kill him.'==
Me: In at least two of my responses I mentioned our Lord's words to His believers that, "everyone who lives and believe in Me shall never die". If one reads that verse alone, by itself, without bringing in other verses that I believe are needed to understand what He meant by those words, then the unbeliever could say Jesus was wrong, because His believers did die (and do die).
Now, I have also mentioned that numerous commentators had stated that Surah 4.157 is a very difficult/complex verse. If one attempts to exegete the verse in isolation to the rest of the Qur'an, then the outcome becomes skewed. One needs to understand the various senses of dying/death in the Qur'an; and one needs to identify the "they" of the verse, what "they" thought on the matter—i.e. was the "plot" of the "they" accomplished, or was the outcome much different than their expectations.
As for Ibn Abbas, he was mentioned in Cummings essay on page 12, and I quoted that section in my previous comment on Jan. 29, 2012 4:05 PM; here it is again:
== On pages 11-12 we read:
“I am causing you to ‘die’ [mutawaffīka],” that is, causing your literal death [mumītuka]. And this is a tradition recounted on the authority of [marwī'an] Ibn 'Abbās and Muhammad ibn Ishāq. They said: the purpose was that his Jewish enemies should not be able to kill him, so then after that he honored him by raising him to heaven. Then, there are three different senses in which they understood this: First: Wahb said, “He died [tuwuffiya] for three hours, then was raised [rufii'a].” Second: Muhammad ibn Ishāq said, “He died [tuwuffiya] for seven hours, then God restored him to life [ahyāhu] and raised him [rafa'ahu]...”
[Notice that Ibn 'Abbās is cited as an "authority", the same Ibn 'Abbās that is cited by the folk at Evidence For God's Unchanging Word!]==
Grace and peace,
David
Sorry it took me a while to respond.
The quote from Ibn Abbas was hard to find, (because you gave the wrong page number, and it was not highlighted by Cumming as one of the main sources); it was on pages 12-13, and it seems it is within Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasool Allah", however Cumming does not footnote his source on this one.
Ok, so Ibn Abbas is reported to have said something about Christ’s death.
It is still amazing to me that you think that Surah 3:169 helps you interpret Surah 4:157 in a way that Christians teach about John 11:25-26. You are free to believe that; but it all seems so forced and so manipulated, and raises other questions about how you square it with the Gospel accounts and the resurrection, etc. – but again, you are free to believe that.
So, do you think Surah 3:54 is saying Allah deceived the Jews into thinking they killed Jesus, but the Romans actually did the nailing? How does that square with the Gospels, when they never intended to kill him personally once Jesus was arrested, but their plot was to force the Romans to do the deed for them – “we have no king but Caesar” and “we are not allowed to execute anyone”, etc. ??
Careful Muslims are just saying that 4:157 means that Jesus was put on the cross, but not crucified to the point of death; and that it appeared to the Jews (and supposedly others) that He was being crucified and killed. But they claim Allah raised Him and rescued Him from death, and made it appear that he was crucified and died. some leave it at that; others say someone else was put in His place.
How do you square the whole idea of it is just saying the Jews didn’t do it, when the NT holds the Jewish leaders responsible – Acts 2:22-23; 2:36; I Thessalonians 2:14-16; etc. ?
One Muslim even quoted John Hick, the Unitarian Universalist philosopher.
Rev Professor John Hick, who said in a lecture to the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, March 2005:
“Historically it is very difficult to dispute the Qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.”
So, you may have manipulated the text to say in your mind that 4:157 means Jesus really was killed, by the Romans, but it doesn’t square with the plots of the Jews to manipulate the Romans, the NT holding the Jews responsible, the Gospel account details, the resurrection, the appearances, etc. How do you fit all of that into 4:157, assuming you think, “Allah raised him to himself” means the ascension?
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; I am going to try and focus on one point at a time, patiently waiting for your response/s, before moving on, with the hope that clarity will emerge.
Earlier today, you posted:
==It is still amazing to me that you think that Surah 3:169 helps you interpret Surah 4:157 in a way that Christians teach about John 11:25-26. You are free to believe that; but it all seems so forced and so manipulated, and raises other questions about how you square it with the Gospel accounts and the resurrection, etc. – but again, you are free to believe that.==
Me: It is "amazing to me" that you seem unable to connect the issue of harmonization that is the common element at work here. I have quoted numerous other folk who embrace the type of harmonization that I have employed (including Christian pastors at work in Muslim lands), yet you find such harmonization "amazing"—I am honestly left at a loss as to why you remain so adamant in your position—it makes no sense to me.
Complicating the matter is that you are quite willing to stand against the dominate Sunni understanding of corruption concerning the Bible, but then back away from taking a similar stand against the dominate Sunni position concerning the understanding of Surah 4.157. IMHO the folk at EFGUW are being consistent here, while you are not.
Hope to hear from you soon...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
You wrote:
"Me: It is "amazing to me" that you seem unable to connect the issue of harmonization that is the common element at work here. I have quoted numerous other folk who embrace the type of harmonization that I have employed (including Christian pastors at work in Muslim lands), yet you find such harmonization "amazing"—I am honestly left at a loss as to why you remain so adamant in your position—it makes no sense to me."
The kind of harmonization going on is so unconnected and disjointed that, (reminds me of what Irenaeus says about how the heretics and Gnostics do with the scripture, ignoring context and pasting things together to look like a fox - something like that, I am sure you know the reference) frankly, it just does not pass the "smell test". Part of the reason it does not pass the "smell test" is because of the other issues I brought in, which you separated out and keep wanting to beat the dead horse of only focusing on this issue.
Complicating the matter is that you are quite willing to stand against the dominate Sunni understanding of corruption concerning the Bible,
Yes, because it seems to be the author's intended meaning in the Qur'an that the previous Scriptures were not corrupted, but later they discovered that there are contradictions, so they had to come up with the doctrine of Tareef al Lafzi or Tareef ul Matn (text). the Qur'an seems to only indicate that there was Tareef ul ma'navi. (distortion of meanings; wrong interpretations. And I think Turretinfan did an excellent job of proving this in his recent article. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-allah-preserve-his-words.html
It is also posted at www.aomin.org
He is correct and the way the Muslims try and overcome that is to make matters much worse for themselves, because they are forced to go back a long time and claim that all of the Torah and all of the Zabur and all of the Injeel was completely lost and that they don't believe any of the Gospels or letters are even the "injeel" at all.
but then back away from taking a similar stand against the dominate Sunni position concerning the understanding of Surah 4.157.
Because it doesn't pass the smell test of looking honestly at the text and seeing it plainly according to the author's intended meaning. "they did not crucify him, they did not kill him; .... for sure they did not kill him" - is to emphatic and clear to then say, "well he really was crucified and killed". It is just goofy to me.
And it fits with the context of 3:54 and the deception of Allah - He is the best of deceivers. الله خیر المکارین
IMHO the folk at EFGUW are being consistent here, while you are not.
I disagree. On the issue of the crucifixion, they seem to be wanting to save the Qur'an from embarrassment.
that the Qur'an does not actually say the text was corrupted - this passes the smell test; and seems to be consistent with the author's intended meaning.
With the crucifixion and 4:157 - it doesn't pass the smell test and seems to go against the author's intended meaning of that verse.
Now, let's not beat this particular issue any more, but I would appreciate if you would interact with the other points I made, about the Jews and the NT and Surah 3:54 and the deception of Allah, because part of the reason why your view does not pass the smell test is because of those issues.
Hello again Ken,
One last whack with the stick, before moving on. I remain troubled by your contention that 4.157 is "clear", when I know a number of scholars who state the exact opposite, namely that the verse is a "difficult" one. This notion of clarity reminds me of a number of NT verses, which, in and of themselves, appear to be quite "clear", but when weighed with the rest of the NT, they become anything but "clear". 1 Cor. 15:29 is a classic example. The verse itself is quite "clear", yet there has been over 40 different interpretations on this "clear" verse. The 'honest' interpretation is that Christians were being baptized for the dead, and Paul says nothing against the practice, yet what Christians today are being baptized for the dead?
Anyway, onto 3.54,55. Given your view on Dr. Kassis' understanding of makara (m*k*r), I sincerely doubt anything that I could add to the discussion would be productive, for it seems that you have confined yourself to a very narrow meaning of the term.
If I have somehow misunderstood your position here, please correct me.
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,
The verse clearly says,
4:157, "Those who disagree there in they are full of doubts, they have no CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE, but they follow CONJECTURE" For of a surety they killed him not.
Now, as David has pointed out as have Muslim commentators even the part that says, "for of a surety they killed him not."
That seems like the most certain part of the verse, but even than it could lend itself to three views.
1) They killed him not because Allah lifted him whole (body and soul) to the heavens.
2) They killed him not because he really 'passed out' or 'swooned' and he survived.
3) They killed him not because in reality those who are 'killed' in the way of Allah are alive though you perceive it not.
James White even used in his debate to counter the Muslim question 'Can God die' "I thought even Muslims believe that death is not a cessation of life'. Interesting.
Any who I have begun to post my discussion with David Wood (an e-mail exchange in which Sam Shamoun, John Esposito, Shabir Ally among others were included in.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2012/02/conversation-with-david-wood-does-quran.html
btw,
I also wanted to mention that one thing I am absolutely positively certain about is that James White and Ken are absolutely not certain that Jesus died on a Cross. Be it a T an X or a + like structure.
They can claim they are certain all they want. However, they have no certainty upon which to base their claim.
They just presuppose that it is true.
I believe that the reason Muslims and Christians are having these engagements is due to a manuscript contained in P52 that is no bigger than the size of a credit card. Upon which Christians feel is sufficient enough to base their salvation upon.
Ladies and gentleman do you want to rest your salvation upon a manuscript in P52 that is no bigger than a credit card?
Not for me.
David,
So, let's take the meaning of Makr مکر as just "a smart plan" or "out-witting" someone else" or plot, etc. ( In 3:54-55)
How does that fit in with your view, since you claim to be a Christian and there was never a plot for the Jews to personally kill Jesus at His trial - they were not trying to do the nailing themselves. They wanted him found guilty of blasphemy and manipulated the crowds to convince Caesar and the Romans to do the deed.
And what about the many verses that lay the responsibility on the Jews for their "plots" and "instigations" - Acts 2:22-23; 2:36; 1 Thess. 2:14-16 - ?
It doesn't make any sense to say the meaning of 4:157 is that Jesus really was crucified and really was killed; since all good people who die are really alive with Allah anyway, (like Surah 3:169 and GV19's # 3)
and
"it is only saying the Jews didn't drive in the nails" - but Acts 2:23 says "you nailed (him) to a cross".
So explain Surah 3:54-55 with the more positive meaning of Makr مکر to me.
Verse 52 says the Disciples of Jesus are believers, faithful, helpers of Allah, and submitted to Allah.
Verse 55 and 61:14 says the Disciples of Jesus will be above those who disbelieve until the day of resurrection; and they will gain the victory, strengthened, and became the uppermost.
Early Christianity - the disciples went on to write books and letters - Peter, James, John, Matthew, preached the gospel everywhere - Mark wrote down Peter's preaching. Christ revealed Himself to Paul and called him as an apostle and he wrote 13 letters and preached and they were all eventually unified with the other disciples - Galatians chapters 1-2; Acts 10-11; 15; I Cor. 9:1-5; I Cor. 15:1-10. They won the Roman Empire by love and preaching and good deeds and being persecuted for 3 centuries, eventually the Roman Empire became Christian. (mixture of both true believers and cultural nominal Chrisitans)
How does all that square with Surah 3:54-55 and 61:14 and the Islamic view that the Injeel was totally lost (somewhere between 30 - 48 AD - or beyond - GV19 implies this by his comment on P-52 manuscript) and Jesus was not really crucified (# 1 in GV19s) ?
How could they have become the uppermost and have been just Unitarian mono-theists (Ebionites, or some Jewish small sect) - it just doesn't fit with history.
GV19,
Why do you think David W. and other modern western Islamic scholars like the ones that David W. has brought out in these posts - why do they try so desperately to manipulate the text to the meaning of Surah 3:169? (view # 3 that you put up)
What purpose does that serve?
Who in the Islamic world would ever accept that view - in Saudi Arabia, or Al Azhar in Egypt or in Qom, Iran ??
Is that view even considered among Islamic scholars outside of western countries or by guys like Lawson (a westerner)?
by the way,
GV19 -
Thanks for discussing issues in a better way now. Much improved!
May the Lord give you true peace in the Messiah, Jesus - John 14:27
Romans 5:1-11
Ephesians 2:11-22
Sincerely,
Ken
Also, Turretinfan demolished Ijaz Ahmad's arguments regarding what the Qur'an says about the previous Scriptures.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-allah-preserve-his-words.html
"As noted above, however, this doesn't really solve the problem - it just makes it worse. The Torah and Injil are now not merely somehow obscured through textual variation, but instead are completely destroyed. Under this theory, they are preserved much worse than if the Old and New Testaments are the Torah and Injil."
Moreover, there is no good argument provided for the assertion that the Torah and Injil do not correspond to Old and New Testament. Regarding the Injil, the argument that it cannot be the New Testament because of the mode of transmission (a) makes the problem even worse for the Muslim and (b) assumes both the reliability of the Qur'an on this point and the reliability of Christian accounts of how the gospels were given."
That pretty much sank the Muslim apologetic argument.
Hello GV19 and Ken,
I finally have a few moments to read the posts you guys put up (thanks much for taking the time to do so!). I only have about 30 minutes before I have to attend to other projects, so I doubt that I will be able to type up any comments today. Tomorrow I am out of town, so I suspect that comments from the Beachbum will have to wait until Sunday afternoon.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello GV19,
Forgive my somewhat tardy response (this beachbum has been very busy of late).
I want to thank you for the link to the email exchange that you have been participating in. I suspect that a lot more dialogue has transpired, and wonder if you will be providing additional installments?
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken,
As I mentioned to GV19, I have been very busy of late, so please forgive the tardiness of my response.
I think you have raised some important concerns. I have been reflecting on your comments over that last couple of days (off and on, of course), and think I need to go back, and re-read the related data again, before I attempt continue this discussion. I may need to adjust my position, so please be patient with me.
God bless,
David
Hello again Ken,
I have been going back and reading a number of the essays that I have referenced, keeping in mind what you have penned on this issue. Though I have no problem acknowledging that your position MAY be the correct one, after much reflection, I am also not able to discount the position outlined below:
>>There is actually only one single verse in the entire Qur'ān which critics use to deny the crucifixion of Jesus:
'They [The Jews] declared: "We have put to death the Messiah ‘Isa son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did. Those that disagreed about him were in doubt concerning his death, for what they knew about it was sheer conjecture, they were not sure that they had slain him. Allah lifted him up to His presence; He is mighty and wise.' -Sura Nisa 4:157 (N.J. Dawood translation)
What Tabari and Razi failed to consider is that the above verse is actually not denying the crucifixion per se but rather it denies that the Jews (verse 153) performed the crucifixion as they proudly allege. These unbelieving Jews arrogantly "thought" that they had overpowered and killed Jesus, but the Qur'ān is setting the historical record straight. The Jews in Jesus' day were actually weak and subjugated and unable to sentence people to death---it was actually the Romans who crucified Jesus.
This is in fact, is exactly what the Injīl teaches on the matter. The Jews were the proud instigators of the false charges against Jesus. However, Palestine was under Roman rule at that time and they had no authority to touch Jesus. If they would have killed him according to the shari'a of the Torah, they would have stoned him to death, not ‘lifted up' as the prophecies of Messiah predicted. Jesus himself even predicted beforehand that he would be killed not by the Jews but by the Gentile Romans (Matthew 20:19). Tabari and Razi, who had no direct access to the historical account in the Injīl, would not have known about this natural solution.
But on an even deeper level, it was neither the Jews nor the Romans who killed Jesus, but it was God's plan. We see a very good illustration of this in Sura Anfal which says:
"It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's…" – Sura Anfal 8:15
This passage describes the response of the Muslim warriors to their victory at the Battle of Badr. They were boasting and taking pride in what they considered their achievement until this passage corrected their error. The passage corrects their foolish boasting and instructs them to recognize that it was God who brought to pass all that happened that day. They were only the instruments that God used to fulfill His plan.
In this same way, in Sura Nisa verse 157, God is telling the Jews that their boasting is totally unfounded and in error. They didn't kill the Messiah as they so proudly boast. What actually did happen to the Messiah is not the purpose of this passage to address. However, as we know from the earlier books, it was the Romans who actually killed him, though it was God's plan that brought it all to be.(http://www.unchangingword.com/did_jesus_die.php)>>
So, in summation, though I believe that both positions have validity, given the early witness of Ibn Abbas, and the diversity of interpretations among Muslims who deny the physical death of Jesus on the cross, I lean towards the view Surah 4.157 does not deny the death and crucifixion of Jesus.
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
"I want to thank you for the link to the email exchange that you have been participating in. I suspect that a lot more dialogue has transpired, and wonder if you will be providing additional installments?"
Yes, it took me some time. My format in my blog is quite horrible some times I do admit.
I posted all the exchange, as well as final thoughts/comments by me.
I am now taking some time to do a series on 'Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidences' by Robert E. Van Voorst.
Thank you much for your time.
David wrote:
I have been reflecting on your comments over that last couple of days (off and on, of course), and think I need to go back, and re-read the related data again, before I attempt continue this discussion. I may need to adjust my position, so please be patient with me.
That gave me a lot of hope that I had finally "broken through" so that you would see that your view (and Lawson's) just does not make sense. I was thinking we were really communicating.
Then you went back to your position and did not even interact in a way that makes any sense with the trials of Jesus and the Jews clearly said they did not want to execute Jesus because they were under the Romans and they expresses their obedience to Caesar, etc. - you did't interact in a way that makes sense with the issues of the plot by the Jews and the Romans and how the NT puts the blame on the Jewish leaders for the death of Jesus.
The Jewish leaders said, "Crucify Him" in all four gospels (Matthew 27:22-35; Mark 14:12-32; Luke 23:20-33; John 19:1-30) - they were not trying to stone Him according to the Torah. (They did earlier in John 5, John 8, and John 10; but not after the arrest and trials started - your version of it just doesn't make sense at all.
When I read your retreat back to your position I was shocked and my mouth hung open in amazement and have been silent.
It is amazing that you put a Christian theological interpretation onto the Islamic text - God's plan of redemption- really God killed Jesus; and "well, the Romans really did the nailing, so all 4:157 is saying is that the Jews didn't do the nailing". Totally dumbfounded as to how someone so careful and intelligent and well read can come to the conclusion that you have come to.
According to the NT, they were successful in getting Him crucified and killed and what they did was unjust in killing an innocent person. God holds them responsible - Acts 2:22-23; 2:36; 1 Thess. 2:14-16.
It was God's sovereign plan, yes - to be the atonement for sins of people from all the nations. Rev. 5:9; but that is not how Islam sees the event.
You never addressed all the Qur'anic material in the context that says that the disciples of Jesus became the uppermost and victorious .
Also, again:
Here, Dr. Arzouni clearly identifies Bahai'allah as someone who wrote something and claimed it was from God and so violated Qur'an Surah 2:79
http://www.unchangingword.com/obj_quran_03baqara279.php
So, now, are you prepared to renounce your openness to the Bahai Faith ?
John 18:31 - "Pilate said, Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your own law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death."
That does not fit with your interpretation of the Jews plot and the Qur'an.
How do you explain that?
It is like you have not read the 4 gospel accounts of the trials and crucifixion of Jesus in a long time. (or Acts chapter 2) You have been reading too many other books, David.
John 19:10-11 - Jesus says to Pilate that the ones who handed Him over to Pilate and the Romans have the greater sin. (Judas and the Jewish leaders)
GV19,
David will certainly give his view and recommendation and you can take what you want.
"Q" is just a theory - short for "Quelle" - the German word for "source". It is a hypothetical thing. No "Q" has ever been found. It is trying to explain the material in Matthew and Luke that is common but not found in Mark, and assumes that Mark and some unknown "Q" are the oldest "sources" for the Synoptic gospels.
different theories of what "Q" might be depend on what view one takes - there are many.
One is the "Two Source theory" - another theory can use "Q" and other hypothetical documents or oral traditions that can be a "Four Source Theory", etc.
In the larger issue of the NT and gospels, etc. - that address "Q" within the books -
Some good books from a conservative Evangelical point of view are:
1. Introduction to the New Testament, by D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo
2. A Harmony of the Gospels, (NASB) by Robert L. Thomas and Stanley Gundry. Has a good appendix that explains "Q" and the "Synoptic Problem" and harmonization and interacts with Form Criticism, Source Criticism, and Redaction Criticism.
3. Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace.
4. The Heresy of Orthodoxy, by Andreas Kostenberger (he was in my seminary class in 1987-1988 at CIU, Columbia, SC - always made perfect 100s in Hebrew and Greek - amazing. Very cool to see him go on to Phd and become one of the leading Evangelical scholars of today.)
5. Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. (has chapters by William L. Craig, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Edwin Yamauchi, Darrell Bock, Gary Habermas.)
Eta Linneman is another interesting person.
She was a higher critic liberal scholar who was converted and changed her view about the Synoptics and Mark for a more conservative view.
From the Wikipedia article on her:
Linnemann caused a stir in 1978 when, due to a conversion experience in November 1977 according to her own statement, she renounced the historical-critical method, and asked readers destroy her previous publications.[2] From 1983, at the age of 60, she departed Germany for Indonesia to train pastors at the Theological University of the Indonesian Mission community in Batu. In her book "What is credible - the Bible or the Bible criticism" Linnemann claimed in 2007, citing an unnamed ear witness, that Rudolf Bultmann on his death bed had recanted his critical views. A real proof of that assertion, however, so far (as of 2009) remains only an echo in Bultmann's research.
. . .
Linnemann rejected Markan priority and favored the Independence View of the synoptic gospels. One of Linnemann's views to find support among conservative English speaking scholarship, notably F. David Farnell, was her rejection of a Q (source) for the synoptic Gospels in favour of an explanation following the Jewish requirement of Deuteronomy 19:5 that "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed".[3]
See also:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8h.pdf
Another good book is
D. A. Carson's commentaries on
1. Matthew (in Volume 8 of the Expostiors Bible Commentary; also has a commentary by Mark and Luke by other authors. they all discuss "Q" also.
2. John (not related to "Q" theories, but a good scholarly commentary by a very well respected Evangelical.)
Hi Ken,
You posted:
==That gave me a lot of hope that I had finally "broken through" so that you would see that your view (and Lawson's) just does not make sense. I was thinking we were really communicating.==
I was really trying to understand why you are so opposed to Anderson's, Arzouni's, and Aslan's (all Christian ministers/missionaries to Muslims), position. Those gents are in a much better position than me (and at least two seem quite fluent in Arabic) when it comes to Surah 4.157. I am beginning to suspect that it because Lawson also holds to their view that you are so adamant against it.
==Then you went back to your position and did not even interact in a way that makes any sense with the trials of Jesus and the Jews clearly said they did not want to execute Jesus because they were under the Romans and they expresses their obedience to Caesar, etc. - you did't interact in a way that makes sense with the issues of the plot by the Jews and the Romans and how the NT puts the blame on the Jewish leaders for the death of Jesus.==
First, I went back to Anderson's, Arzouni's, and Aslan's position, and found it to be the most compelling (but certainly not the only possible position); second, I did not "interact in a way that makes any sense", because I believe that Anderson, Arzouni, and Aslan have already done so. Neither they, nor I, deny that the Jews were held accountable for the death and rejection of our Lord; what we deny is that THEY actually performed the crucifixion itself, and that their 'plot' to get rid of Jesus forever (i.e once and for all) was accomplished. I honestly don't know how we can communicate the situation in any clearer terms.
Perhaps you need to reexamine the anthropology and eschatology of the Jews of Jesus day; it seems that you think their views on these two related doctrines were the same as Jesus'. A correct/full understanding of Biblical anthropology and eschatology is essential if one is going to make sense of Surah 4.157.
== When I read your retreat back to your position I was shocked and my mouth hung open in amazement and have been silent.==
I would not say that I am "shocked" by your failure to interact in a meaningful way with the position of Anderson, Arzouni, and Aslan; I think 'a bit troubled', would be accurate though. I sincerely believe that you are deceiving yourself when you think that their position has NO merit at all—my goodness, these guys are truly 'on the front lines', so to speak.
== According to the NT, they were successful in getting Him crucified and killed and what they did was unjust in killing an innocent person. God holds them responsible - Acts 2:22-23; 2:36; 1 Thess. 2:14-16.==
Agreed, no argument here Ken.
== It was God's sovereign plan, yes - to be the atonement for sins of people from all the nations. Rev. 5:9; but that is not how Islam sees the event.==
Surah 4.157 is not addressing the doctrine of the atonement, is addressing whether or not the Jews themselves ACTUALLY crucified Jesus.
== You never addressed all the Qur'anic material in the context that says that the disciples of Jesus became the uppermost and victorious .==
I honestly don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not the Jews themselves ACTUALLY crucified Jesus.
cont'd
cont'd
==Here, Dr. Arzouni clearly identifies Bahai'allah as someone who wrote something and claimed it was from God and so violated Qur'an Surah 2:79
http://www.unchangingword.com/obj_quran_03baqara279.php
So, now, are you prepared to renounce your openness to the Bahai Faith ?==
I think you are totally missing the primary point that is being made; note the following:
== It is simply ludicrous to assert that God-fearing Christians and Jews would allow their Sacred Scripture to be changed, deluding themselves. Muhammad's advice to the Jews and Christians was not to discard their scriptures and follow the Qur'ān , but rather to judge carefully by their own Scriptures (Maidah 5:47).==
Baha'u'llah affirmed both the Bible and the Qur'an as being from God, faithfully preserved, and authoritative. Now, he may have been a false prophet, but he did not, like Mani, Mazdak, and Joseph Smith Jr., believe in that the Bible itself was woefully corrupted.
Grace and peace,
David
I guess we have beat that horse to death several times, enough; although I am still amazed.
GV19 - what do you think of the way these guys like Lawson, and others have made Surah 4:157 actually say, "Jesus actually was crucified and he was killed, he was dead, for sure he was killed" ??
It would be interesting to get your take on how they use 3:169 to interpret all that; and that it is only saying the Jews didn't actually use the hammer and nails to crucify Christ, but that the Romans did do it.
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken, I am a person who is ignorant on a great many things.
I do not like to comment on matters in which I do not have adequate knowledge.
Once I get the book by Dr. Lawson (which should be arriving in the mail any day now) Allah-willing I will give it a read and look at it.
Than I will feel appropriate to comment on what they are saying.
It seems to me there are three possible views -from the Muslim position.
1) That Jesus did not die on a cross but that God made someone else look like Jesus. Than God took Jesus body and soul into the heavens.
I don't have a problem with that view. I do have a huge problem with the interpolated commentary that states that God randomly chose someone else to look like Jesus and than that person was put on a cross.
Why would God allow Christians and others to be deceived into thinking they killed Jesus when they did not. I have no answer that will satisfy you.
I guess I could say that God did that he was operating from the same imperative that allows him to have a decretive will and a perceptive will that Piper expounds on...(shrugs shoulders)
2) Swoon theory used by the Ahmadiyyah movement in Islam and the Lahori's, and borrowed by Ahmed Deedat (May Allah have mercy on him).
It is also a strong contender, however the real issue comes down to what happens to Jesus after the whole ordeal. Did he continue to preach to the other sheep not present? Did he die in Qadian India or what?
3) Jesus 'died' but as the Qur'an says do not think that those who are killed in the way of God they are dead, they are alive but they perceive it not.
1 Corinthians 15:31. "I die every day".
Or as James White says, 'You would think that Muslims would appreciate the ideal that death is not a cessation of life.'
From what I have seen the presentation and the arguments presented seem to make allot of sense.
However, I think in order to bolster their particular perspective Dr. Lawson and those who advance the view need to adjust the ideal that Jesus 'died' on a 'cross'.
The real issue that I see and problematic with point 3) is that I feel Muslims would concede too much in terms of Christian theological points.
In terms of if Jesus 'died' than that also means he was resurrected from the dead.
However, I tell you what, you take away the trinity doctrine and we might have a deal.
;) (wink wink)
Hi GV19,
Thanks much for taking the time post some of your additional comments/reflections—IMHO, this is an important issue, and I greatly appreciate everyone's input.
Yesterday, you wrote:
==Once I get the book by Dr. Lawson (which should be arriving in the mail any day now) Allah-willing I will give it a read and look at it.==
I am quite pleased to learn that you have ordered Dr. Lawson's book; the fact that you have done so, clearly speaks to your willingness to seriously look into this issue.
==3) Jesus 'died' but as the Qur'an says do not think that those who are killed in the way of God they are dead, they are alive but they perceive it not.
1 Corinthians 15:31. "I die every day".
Or as James White says, 'You would think that Muslims would appreciate the ideal that death is not a cessation of life.'
From what I have seen the presentation and the arguments presented seem to make allot of sense.==
Great quote from James White—in that brief quote he has not only has harmonized Surah 4.157 with the rest of the Quranic passages on Jesus death, but also with the New Testament !!!
I would add the following Biblical versers:
John 6:50 - This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. (KJV)
John 8:51 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. (KJV)
John 11:26 - And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (KJV)
Looking forward to your comments on Lawson's book after you have had a chance to read it.
Grace and peace,
David
Or as James White says, 'You would think that Muslims would appreciate the ideal that death is not a cessation of life.'
From what I have seen the presentation and the arguments presented seem to make allot of sense.==
Great quote from James White—in that brief quote he has not only has harmonized Surah 4.157 with the rest of the Quranic passages on Jesus death, but also with the New Testament !!!
The context of Dr. White's quote was ( I am pretty sure) the debate with Abdullah Kunde on the incarnation and the Muslims thinking that when we say "Jesus died" we do not mean the divine nature was destroyed or ceased to exist - God cannot die; yet Jesus (both 100 % God and 100 % man) died. He was referring to death being the soul separating from the body, so the human nature and body died; but His soul /spirit continued, and He was raised again from the dead by the Spirit - I Peter 3:18.
I Corinthians 15:31 - "I die daily" - look at the context and verses around it - "I faced wild beasts in Ephesus" - meaning I have to be ready to die at any time, so I die to my self and rights and take up my cross daily - Luke 9:23.
John 11:26
John 6:50, John 8:51 - yes, Islam should agree that death only means the separation of the soul from the body and that the soul continues in heaven or hell, and that is what Surah 3:169 seems to mean.
It does not seem to mean what is going on in Surah 4:157.
== You never addressed all the Qur'anic material in the context that says that the disciples of Jesus became the uppermost and victorious .==
I honestly don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not the Jews themselves ACTUALLY crucified Jesus.
Amazing that you don't see it.
The Qur'an claims the followers of Jesus became victorious and the uppermost; yet they also claim at the same time that the true followers of Jesus were the small little Jewish sects that survived, the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes, whom Epiphanias, and Jerome mentioned in the late 300s- early 400s AD.
You don't see the problem there?
You don't see the connection there?
What is the point of Surah 4:157 if all it is saying is that the Jews didn't nail the nails in? We already know that from the gospels, but they did instigate it - they are like the "mob boss" who ordered the hit, more accountable - Pilate and the Romans wouldn't have done it without their demands and the crowds.
Still Amazing that you don't' see the connection, the problems with this view, and the manipulation and playing with words that you and Lawson do to make "they did not kill him , nor did they crucify Him . . . for sure they did not kill him"
to them mean "oh, they didn't actually do it, but he really was killed and he really was crucified and for sure he really was killed".
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
"He was referring to death being the soul separating from the body, so the human nature and body died; but His soul /spirit continued, and He was raised again from the dead by the Spirit - I Peter 3:18."
I don't want to be presumptuous and I believe David is completely capable of speaking for himself.
However, Ken I believe that is what David is saying.
Basically:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
Ken maybe you want so desperately for their to be a contradiction.
Maybe you should take some time for some introspection and ask yourself.
What presuppositions do I have going into this.
How would I be devastated by what Dr. Lawson is offering.
Or even better, how would I be enriched by what Dr. Lawson is offering.
Not desperately wanting a contradiction; but just logically already seeing a contradiction and my understanding of the Qur'ans intention of Surah 4:157 fits with yours. (smile)
But it does seem to be contradictory to 19:33, though not totally with 3:54-55, because of the plotting and scheming of Allah.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me; since I believe the Bible is true and confirmed by history for 600 years before Qur'an.
David is the one who seems to want to "save" the Qur'an from embarrassment of denying real history and also needs it to a step in between Bible and Bahai'ism.
GV19,
I finally had time to read your 4 articles on your email conversation with David Wood. I appreciate you putting all that up, sincerely.
In part 3, David demolished the Islamic side of the debate. Sorry, your "conclusion" just could not overcome the strength of David's arguments and all the evidence he brought.
He devastated yours and all Muslim arguments on that issue. The case is proven in a court of law. You gave your view and understanding and your case is very very weak.
Anyway, I thank you for putting that up.
With the name of Allah,
Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Todd Lawson: "The Crucifixion and the Qur'an" arrived today. 150pgs is not that difficult to knock out.
Ken you should pick it up as well!
Any how from the short bit that I read I was concerned with a few things.
1) Todd Lawson never attempts to explain what Crucifixion means.
2) Todd Lawson does not tell us his personal beliefs in regards to what happens to Jesus 'after the facts'.
Though I understand that his focus is on 4:157 and the understanding of it.
pg 23 of his book he gives what he believes are the 3 responses or interpretations of what happens in 4:157. Curious is that he does not touch upon the ideal that Jesus was on the pole/tree and was taken down alive.
The Ahmadiyyah translation is mentioned in passing, but their view is never really expounding upon.
"Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion" at Gothenburg University (supervisor Samuel Byrskog). This 300 plus page book I just finished reading is a roller coaster for sure!
Todd Lawson's views may need revision. However, again I just dipped my toe in the water. 120 pages left to go.
Hi GV19,
It is so good to hear that you have received Lawson's book, and have begun to read it. I am sincerely looking forward to more of your reflections on the content, once you have finished it.
Until then, one brief comment/question on the following you posted:
==The Ahmadiyyah translation is mentioned in passing, but their view is never really expounding upon.==
It is my understanding that most Muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah sect to be heretical, and hence, it's adherents are not Muslims. Am I correct on this?
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. For those not familiar with the Ahmadiyyah 'Community', the following is the link to their official website:
Al Islam
Post a Comment