Islamic consistency or inconsistency?

As the holiday season comes to an end the debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus etc continues.
As I look back on 2012 I see many Islamic apologists attacking other faiths, as if for some reason that proves Islam is true. If I disprove Hinduism that does not mean Christianity is true? If I disprove all faiths that does not mean Christianity is true? No, you have to prove your faith is true.

Now many Muslims target the bible as a way to seek truth in Islam. However, my argument focuses on the double standards they use a long the way to prove their faith and that it is a must for them to use double standards, because if they were consistent they would have to throw out the Quaran as a divine historical text. Even though I am not going to go into too much detail in regards to the Islamic claims to divinity; I want to focus on Muslims irrational claims that when making an argument against another faith they have a similar problem that would also affect the Quaran and that the same standard they use to prove their faith fails to meet a consistent standard when making an argument against another faith

1. The Quaran claims that it has the historical words of Jesus of Nazareth; however, when we look at the Quaran we see certain words of Jesus in the Quaran showing similarities to the words of Jesus in apocryphal gospels such the Arabic infancy gospel and the infancy gospel of Thomas. For example:


The Quran says:

19:29-31 The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.

Arabic infancy gospel


We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world."

In Sura 19:30, Jesus says, "I am the servant of Allah," but in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, he says, "I am Jesus, the Son of God."

It is clear we can see borrowing. The Arabic infancy gospel shows parallels with the Syriac infancy gospel. It created fables centuries after Jesus. The reason we know this is the fact the gospel shows no historical source it used. We can make a few assumptions but that is about it. The Arabic infancy gospel focuses on Jesus life as child, as we do not see this in the four canonical gospels in much detail. Many gnostic gospels did this to try and fit in the gaps. Now Christian scholars will admit that we do not know how Matthew and Luke knew about Jesus being born of Mary in Bethlehem unless they spoke to Mary or Jesus for it to be confirmed, as they were not at the birth or there during his early years in childhood. Now who would of spoken about Jesus speaking from a cradle in the first century for an oral tradition to pass over 400 years to someone in a foreign land to write it in one known gospel? The arabic infancy gospel. We know it is not historical, as how did anyone know this? You have to prove that the source it used had communications with Mary or Jesus, or an apostle that was told this by Mary or Jesus. The Arabic infancy gospel also show no relations to anything in 1st century palestine or even Palestine itself. IT makes  claim that at a robber who will be crucified along with Jesus is called Dumachus, which shows no relation to any 1st century palestinian name. Bruce Metzger argues in New Testament Studies book that the Arabic Infancy Gospel shows a variant reading of the Acts of Pilate (third century book) that has a different person on the cross known as KECTAC. In the book of Hierotheus in the 12th century the robber on the cross is called Zumachus. We can clearly see an evolution of this robber on the cross, which is what late gospels did, they taken stories from gospels and evoloved them to their own theology.
This gospel had no access to 1st century Palestine nor the eye witnesses to Jesus themselves, therefore it is not historicaly true, meaning the Quaran is wrong.
However, many Muslims will argue that Jesus may have said the verse that is contained in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it's way into the Quaran, as it just got passed down through oral tradition and everything got mixed up and some historical sayings of Jesus are in many gospels but also unhistorical and the Quaran has come to correct them. But, how can you use this as an argument? For example Muslim will use produce a surah like it as an argument to show the Quaran is from God by using historical analysis, such as  comparing ancient Arabic literature, Arabic linguistics etc to show it is supposedly from God, but then throw out all historical analysis when something shows the quaran is wrong by making an argument from silence, when as shown above the verse that is in the arabic infancy gospel that has made it into the Quaran did not come from the historical Jesus. Now I have no problem with making an argument from silence if there is no evidence to something, but when there is evidence something is an error or correct we should believe the outcome. So, why the double standard? We might as well just say the Quaran was revealed by the devil not God and that he is very intelligent and was able to disguise himself as an angel and reveal the Quaran to Muhammad. The bible says the devil will come in forms of Angels and deceive people. Could we not just say the bible is making an accurate prophecy? and that the quaran is not unique at all; Muhammad copied the science in the Quaran from a genius in Arabia who was also able to show amazing uniqueness compared to any other poet at the time and then Muhammad killed him and burnt all his other works and said it was from God and shocked everyone. Would you allow me to do this? I mean it could be true but you would just say what is your evidence? and I ask you what is your evidence the Arabic infancy gospel was able to know that Jesus spoke from a cradle which is in the Quaran?

Another common argument made by Muslims is the fact that we do not know who wrote the gospels, so how can we trust them?
Without even looking at the internal evidence we can just look at the external evidence. Papias an early church bishop knew one of the Lords disciples John the elder who was not part of the 12 but walked with Jesus. Papias tells us how he heard the gospel being preached by the elder; Papias tells  us that Matthew who was an eye witness and a disciple of the Lord wrote the gospel of Mathhew. Mark was not an eye witness but wrote his gospel according to the interpretation of Peter the apostle. Papias does not specifically talk about the gospel of Luke or John, but may of originally wrote about John ( we only have parchments of the writings Papias) due to his relations with John the Elder, which is what Richard Bauckham argues in his book Jesus and the eye witnesses (2008).
Irenaeus an early church father who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle and tells us that Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John etc. He mentions all four gospels and the current names we have to them. He tells us like Papias that Peter was the interpreter for Mark and Matthew was an eye witness, that Luke walked with Paul and his gospel was according to eye witness testimony. That John the evangelist wrote Johns gospel.
In John's gospel the author even claims to be an eye witness (John 20:21), so why should we not believe him? As John Meier states in his historical Jesus lecture that John knows Jewish customs, 1st century Palestinian names, Jewish dietary systems, Jewish Law, The Torah and Tanakh, 1st century Palestinian agriculture and archaeology, cities, towns, people etc. So why should he just be thrown out as an eye witness? even if we did not know the authors name that changes nothing. For example, if you have a gospel of Peter that said I am peter the apostle at the beginning of his gospel, but shown errors in Jewish customs etc, but then had an unknown author who claims to be an eye witness and knows everything you would know the unknown gospel is still more reliable. Therefore as D A Carson says in commentary of the gospel of John, 'I see know reason to doubt that the gospel of John was based on an eyewitness account'.
Now lets look at the Quaran authorship. Even though Muslims will say it comes from God and passed through Muhammad, we would say the same thing about the bible but instead of it being God saying it to a prophet it is the eye witnesses who walekd with Jessu telling us about the life of Jesus through what they saw and heard in different accounts through the Holy Spirit. Now, even though Muhammad passed on the Quaran, who established the quaran into a complete written text? Muslims will use the hadith to prove this not the Quaran. The hadith is a collection of works and sayings of Muhammad that is done through chains of narration (Isnad). Now scholars will use various things such as did this person know this person? were they in the same area? did they know the prophet or a companion of the prophet? reporters memory? etc, to determine the strength of the Isnad chain. (Asher Elkayam - 2009, The Quaran and Biblical origins)
Now look the Quaran uses historical anlysis using outside sources to show the Quaran's origin. Many Muslims will say we believe the Quaran and that is the most importance, but the hadith plays a vital role to the history of the Quaran's origins and transmission as a spoken recension and text. So why the inconnistency? why should we believe in Usman? and the 7 ahrufs? sayings of Muhammad? transmission of the Quaran after Muhammad death? the hadiths show of Quaran tradition? Christian scholars use similiar ways to authenticate the bible's authors. Papias knew John the elder who walked with Christ and Ireneous who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle. Now disciple means learner, so they learnt from their teacher, so why trust Isnad chains when we see a similiar but also different tradition with the followers of Jesus and their disciples? Inconsistency.
Muslims may not even propose this and just say well the bible is corrupt, so that is why the Quaran came to correct and confirm what was lost. They may use verses that are in doubt such as Mark 16 9:20, 1 john 5:7. However, we can give good reason to the fact that they are not original .e.g.  1 john 5 7 was added in the 15h century. Mark 16 9:20 is in all our later manuscripts. even though I could go into greater detail, the point I am trying to make is the Muslims have similar problems. Muslims do not obtain the original Quaranic text of Usman or Hafsa's Quaranic text, as reported in Sakik al Bukhari. Muslims only have copies but also two early reciters of the Quaran who Muhammad saw as good , who have conflicting Quarans. They are Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit. Ibn Mauds copy had two less Surahs the Zaid Ibn Thabit but many Muslims will say they still have the same Quaran and both are God's word it is just Zaid Ibn thabit had the Quaran in the Quereyshi dialect and Zaid's extra verses are still God's word., which the Quaran was revealed, however, this is not something Muhammad approved, he said that Ibn Masud was able to recite the Quaran. So what is the meaning of all this? Well due to the fact Usman burning all the Quaran manuscripts that pre dated his standardised Quaran we cannot go back further than the standardised text of Usman, therefore we cannot obtain the original Quaran unless using textual criticism  However, there is a problem, there were a bunch of Quaranic manuscripts that were found in Sana known as the Fogg's palimpsest manuscripts. Many Muslim will just say the different words that are found in the Fogg's compared to the Topsaki manuscript for example are just dialect differences. However, this is not what Gerd Puin an Islamic scholar points out in his book Die Dunklen Afange page 302. He says 'in Surah 5 aya 46 we can read people whose faith is assured, where as in the standardised text we read to those who fear God in Surah 5 aya 46. Now this is a vaiable variant (corruption of the text).
On page 315 Gerd Puin continues by saying that the same tradition of Ibn masud's quaran that is reported in the Fihrist shows similarities to the foggs palimpsest manuscript, due to variant readings. Even though Gerd Puin does not say it is in fact a copy of Ibn Maud's Quaran, the point is there are variant readings in the quaranic manuscripts. So why the inconsistency? when you have the same problem. Muslims may say, 'but the quaran means recitation and it does not matter if the text is corrupt, as it is recorded on the hearts of believers as they say it in their daily prayers'. However, Muslims do not say every word of the Quaran in their daily prayers and even if they did we need the manuscripts to show what the Muslim of 1st century and 2nd century hijra were reciting, so it plays a vital part.

From what has been demonstrated it is clear the there is clear inconsistencies in the Quaran and without Muslims being inconsistent they would have to throw the Quaran away, as it would fail to reach a consistent standard with other faiths.

God Bless

Muslims and the obsession of Bart Ehrman

For many years now I have encountered Muslims who attack the Christian scriptures for either New Testament corruption, forgery, Historical Jesus scholarship, contradictions, authorship etc.
For the people reading who do not know who Dr. Ehrman is, he is a lecturer in Religious Studies at North Carolina Chapel Hill. He is well known in Biblical Scholarship, as specializing in textual criticism. However, he has also deviated into other fields such as historical Jesus scholarship and the even authorship of the gospels. Dr. Ehrman graduated from Moody bible college (BA), Wheaton College (MSc), Princeston (PHD). He is famous for his attacks against the New Testament with works such as Jesus Interupted, Forge, Didymus the blind and the text of the gospels, Lost Christianities and his most famous Misquoting Jesus.
Due to Dr. Ehrman's attacks on the gospels it is seen as ammunition for the Muslim to attack the Christian scriptures. However, it is not that easy, as Dr. Ehrman is not a Muslim and does not hold to the position of Muslims, as he recently said in a recent youtube clip for his promotion of his book Did Jesus exist? he says that the day he studies the Quaranic Jesus is the day he declares his life invaluable.  The short clip can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUSaKDMKJg.
So why do Muslims use Bart Ehrman? Basically through my experience of talking with Muslims they fail the first premise I base my arguments, which is consistency. Muslims pick and choose different parts of Dr. Ehrmans work to attack Christians without having valid evidence for the arguments he has that agree with Christians, which is what I will be showing in this blog.


Muslims will point to Bart's book Misquoting Jesus as their defense for biblical corruption, which is true and he also goes onto to say we do not know what the originals originally said, which was seen as a dangerous road from his Tutor at Princeston Dr. Bruce Metzger. They will use Bart's argument that there are over 400,000 variants in the New Testament without actually applying it in context that virtually 99% of these variants are spelling mistakes. I will not go into too much detail to refute the arguments but to just show that Muslims are cherry picking. Bart was confronted in a radio show where he was asked by the radio host " so what do you think the gospels originally said if they are so corrupt?" Bart replies saying " well what do you mean? I mean they pretty much said what we have today. The thing is Bart focuses on that 2%, which has no affect on doctrine of scripture as his analysis that we do not know what the gospels originally said and that it is corrupt. He is not saying everything is corrupt, which he states in his academic work and his book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which he wrote with Bruce Metzger. Another reason to believe this, is the fact he believes certain sayings of Jesus found in the gospels came from the lips of Jesus, which would then have to be originally written in the gospels for him to make this argument. 

In Dr. Ehrman's debate with Dr. Wallace (is the original new testament lost?) he says the only way he will believe what the 100% original gospels said is if we posses 10 manuscripts of each gospel that date o within a week of the original. Now that it just  radical skepticism, as we have nothing of the sort in ancient history. However, if a Muslim is to take Bart's approach to corruption of scripture, they would have to believe the original Quaran has been lost, as Muslims do not have the original Quaran, as there is no evidence and do not have 10 manuscripts that date to within a week of the original composed by Usman.

Muslims will also allude to the fact Bart always says we do not know who wrote the gospels and that they were not eye witnesses. Even though Bauckham and Hengel have shown amazing work on this, as stated I am not going to go into too much detail on who wrote them. What I will argue is Muslims again either fail to see his inconsistencies or choose not to use them. For example Bart argues we do not know who wrote the gospels. However, he also argues we do not have the autographs of the gospels (originals), which is true. However, what is an autograph? when the author signs his work, so unless they did not sign there work with their name, then yes its anonymous. So what option does the Muslim take? do they Cherry pick or realize Barts contradiction within his own arguments. 


Muslims will also use his book Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet as their source for Jesus being just a prophet. Bart believes Jesus was just a prophet and never claimed to be God in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), but only the Gospel of John, which he believes to be unhistorical and based on theology. He believes Marks gospel being the earliest has more historical information on the historical Jesus. However, even though it can be argued Jesus does claim divinity in all gospels, Muslims fail to understand or just use inconsistent argumentation to what type of prophet Dr. Ehrman believes Jesus is. He believes he is an Apocalyptic Prophet; that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God would come in the his generation (not life) but within the first century, which obviously Muslims would not believe, as they believe Jesus will come again before the day of Judgement. 

Muslims always attack Paul, why? because he preaches a different Jesus to them, even though he was a jew who knew Palestine and lived in the first century. However, Dr. ehrman recognises this and even argues that Paul knew Jesus brother James, which a Muslim would have to disagree with, as why would Paul know Jesus brother James? Bart argues that in Galatians 1 Paul indirectly quotes James

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

(Galatians 1:18-19 ESV)

Bart reasons that unless Paul knew James there would be no reason for him to say this, as it is an indirect quote, which is what historians look for. Now if Paul knew James, surely they had a similar point of view on Jesus? meaning Jesus being divine would also come into the package. Even though Bart may not agree with me on the part og James and Paul sharing same or similar views on Jesus, his argument can be found on this youtube clip 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY.

Muslims have failed or chose not to establish the arguments the Bart uses that contradicts Islam .e.g. he remarks

What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?)claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church.

Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, [Oxford University Press US, 1999], p.229

Muslims deny the the death and obviously burial of Jesus (Surah 4 aya 157) yet predominantly use Dr. Ehrman as their hero for Islam. More can be said on Bart's views that disagree with the Quaran Jesus and Muslims view point. However, it can be seen that Muslims are being inconsistent when uing Bart as there source without comparing it to their own belief. There are answers to the claims made Bart and Muslims. I advise Christians and no Christians to read the works of Dan Wallace on the reliability of the new testament  (textual critisism), Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the eye witnesses, Craig Evans book Fabicating Jesus, Bruce Metzger's booksThe Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration and The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997). Michael Kruger's book the Heresy of orthodoxy. F F Bruce the reliability of the New Testament. Martin Hengel's work Judaism and Hellenism : Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 1st English ed. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974. N T wright's book The Victory of God.  Simon Gathercole: The Pre Existent Son. Timothy Johnson: The Real Jesus. The Historical Jesus and Christology: Thomas Rausch. Wilhelm Schneemelcher: New Testament Apocrypha. D A Carson The gospel of John. Mike Licona: The case for the Resurrection of Jesus. William Lane Craig: The Son Rises, Onguard and Natural Theology. Jame D G Dunn: Jesus Remembered. For an easy read and a starter Lee Stroble's Case for Christ.

God Bless

Lecture - Dr Peter Williams - New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Ey...

Letter to Muslims at Christmas

The Christmas festival has begun and whilst people will be getting drunk, opening presents, partying, there are the people of God who will be celebrating Christmas similar to the secular world (without drunkenness) but we will be putting the whole reason we celebrate Christmas at the centre of it. His name is a man you call Prophet Jesus. To a Christian he is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the great I AM who came into this world to die for our sins and bring us into a relationship with God.
The whole reason I am writing this letter is we both believe in Jesus in similar ways like the virgin birth, his miracles, messiah, prophet etc. But we also have differences such as we believe he was crucified, rose again, was the divine Son of God (God).
Christmas makes me think of Islam; you may think I am crazy for thinking this, but on a secular basis without Christ being at the centre it really does. The worrying part of Christmas is children believe if they are good they will get a reward (presents) from Santa, but if they are bad; then they will not get a reward. This is very similar to Islam, because if you are a good Muslim you will reach Jannah (heaven), but if you are a bad Muslim then you shall not be rewarded Jannah.
Good and bad deeds is how the world goes round, it is the world view on how life should be, but is it justice? A court case is justified by a wrong doing not a good deed, you could of done many good deeds, but stealing that £5000 from a bank is going to cost you.
This same framework is similar to the God of the Bible. If you do nothing wrong then yes you can go free and heaven is it at your feet, but if you do just one thing wrong you are under the wrath of God and he is the judge who will being justice.
Jesus tells us a parable of a young rich man who wanted know how to get eternal life if heaven.

Luke 18

18 uAnd a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to vinherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: w‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, x“All these I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him,“One thing you still lack. ySell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have ztreasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 aBut when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, b“How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus is teaching us that to get into heaven we have to be perfect under the law of God, but we are not perfect, as Romans 3 teaches

23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Therefore we are all under the wrath of God. Justice is not about good and bad deeds, as it is not fair. Some people may have more opportunities to do good than others, meaning more chance of them having more good deeds than bad deeds to reach heaven. With the change is subjective moral values in different cultures over time, good deeds change on a human basis, but that does not mean its good to God, so how do we know what is good and bad? unless we just use what the law of God teaches period.
Sin has to be punished, like a person being justified in a court room, pleading for justice, they have to be justified for their wrong doing. What they have done good, does not come into play. The God of the bible does not just sweep sin under the carpet , it is very serious.
So what do we do if we have all fallen short and punishment is at are doorstep? JESUS CHRIST are redeemer paid the price for us. The divine Son of God entered his own creation, taking on the form of a man, being in the very nature man and God (philipians 2) to die for our sins ( bad deeds), so that we could go to heaven.
Jesus voluntary gave up his life (philipians 2), he was not forced by the father and the father did not kill him.   Justice of Sin has now been vindicated through the blood of Christ for past, present and future sins, so that when God judges us for who ever believes in him he will see Jesus and what he did for you and me.

Romans 3

For there is no distinction: 23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, hrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward aska propitiation lby his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Christmas is about celebrating the birth of our Lord and Saviour who has shown grace, truth and most important his love for us, it is the greatest gift gift you could have for Christmas and it is free.

Romans 10 v 9

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

All to the glory of God, Amen

Speakers corner: Muslims and liberal scholarship

Last Sunday I made a visit to see my Friend and visit Hillsongs churh morning service, which I enjoyed very much, the worship was great.

Me and Ken then decided to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park in the afternoon. I got talking with an ex christian who became a Muslim. His name was Paul and he stated to me he had his own blog, which I have now looked at and he was the head of an Islamic Dawa centre for arranged debates with Muslims and other faiths.

He started out with the a liberal question where did jesus teach he would die for the sins of the world and his view on how to get to heaven. Where he got liberal was when he said but you can't use Johns gospel, because its authorship and historical Jesus is very skeptical among scholars. I stated I would discuss the gospel of john with him as a separate question, but would answer his question without the use of John and use his liberal standard.

He pointed me to the rich man in matthew 19 quote

6 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

He stated as we can see eternal life is by works and you don't need Jesus to die for the sins of the world if you can get salvation by other ways. 

I stated yes you can get to heaven by works, BUT you cant achieve it through works, because this is God's standard the lAW. If you break just one of the the laws you have fallen short of gods standard and you can not enter as we read in Romans 3:23. Only because the man stated he had not done any of things means he is telling the truth. Jesus then states now go and give up everything you have and you shull have treasure in heaven and THEN come follow me. Paul stated but notice you can get treasure in heaven before following jesus. I stated the verse is not complying that interpretation, Jesus is stating the rich things he has are worthless, as treasure in heaven is eternal. the follow me part is issuing the statement o and also come follow me, not the fact when you do these things you get treasure in heaven first and then you have to follow him, Jesus is this using an example of how hard it is for a rich man to reach heaven due to material works, as he says you can't serve two masters. Paul still did not accept it, but we moved on.

I then told him old testament does not teach works get you into heaven, this issue of good and bad deeds is not biblical. I showed him Habakkuk 3 regarding Yahweh is my salvation, not the law. 

If we look at post Resurrection claims of jesus in matthew 28 baptise in the name of the 3 persons, is 1. showing the triune god and 2. why would jesus say this? knowing that when you are baptized it is the cleansing of sin, by being washed by water and bought back up in a new life. 

luke 24

47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

this is Jesus speaking declaring what the Christ had to do. But he stated in post resurrection that he came to die for the sins of the world, now when we look at pre Resurrection, he had not yet died for the sins of the world. The Jewish law and customs are still to be practiced. 

He then started bring scholarship to the table quoting various liberal scholars on how jesus never claimed to be god and doubts within the authenticity of the beloved disciple john son of Zebedee. 

He did quote a few conservative scholars such as  F F Bruce and James Dunn on the gospel of John. He stated that they both doubt the authenticity of johns gospel, because it came after the synoptics and is completely different to the synoptics, as the synoptics show a jesus who preaches the coming kingdom of god and that he is a prophet. But John on the other preaches a divine jesus and only once does he mention the kingdom of god.

I was a bit lost at the start, because I didn't quote know what method for the histrocial jesus he was using, but in fact it was quite conservative, compared to liberal scholarship like John D Crossan who use the non existant gospel Q, gospel of thomas, gospel of hebrews. John Crossan uses two major stepping stones multiple addestation, so if a saying of jesus or something of jesus is in Mark and John that is two sources, but if it is in Mark and Mtthew thats one source, because Matthew used Mark as a source. the other major one is  Embarassment, so if it just embarrasses doctrine and something that looks like the early church would not make up, as it lowers Jesus for example.

However John bought another more conservative method the synoptics contain a more historical jesus than John and jesus shows himself to be a prophet within the eynoptics.

I advised him to read the pre existant son by Simon Gathercole professor of new testement studies at Cambridge University. Simon uses the synoptics, to show Jesus is god, pre existent and divine in the synoptics.

Gathercole mentions The son of God on page 273 and devotes  a whole chapter to it.

matthew 16

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

Jesus accepts the title the son of god. This is different to Marks gospel where he states you are the christ, some may see its an evolution, but is there any evidence? no. If mark is earlier than matthew, which is not what Papias believed in 125 AD, we see mark is a less detailed account, maybe due to the audience he was targeting in his community, which was Jews. It could also be due to the lack of papyri, or as we just see mark is a lazy writer and shows noo detail what so ever. Matthew applies Jesus full sayings or a more explained saying by showing us more context of what Jesus said. differences in accounts don't mean its an evolutionary account.

Jesus accepts the title son of god at his baptism in mar by his father in heaven, this is my son in whom i am well pleased. But does this son of god title just render Galatians 4 that hes just a son of god, just a child of god that we can all become.

Gathercole argues against this; saying jesus is described as the monogonese the unique son. Galtians 4 even tells us to become a son of god you have toa ccepted christ as the son of god.

Gathercole argues this using matthew 11 a verse that ud expect to find in John that is in the synoptics. 

 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 

jesus showing himself as the unique divine son and the only to come to the father is through the son, not a son and it is by the son we see the father, this is not a mere prophet.

In all four gospels Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath in mark 2 for example.

Now how can a prophet as cliamed by Gathercole aswell be a prophet?

exodus 20

⁸ “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. ⁹ Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ¹⁰ but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God

Notice this was a devotion to yahweeh and Jesus is claiming to Kyrios meaning of lord in greek of this day. Gathercole argues saying by no means can it be a polite address or courtly usage on page 244, but it used as a much higher authority. 

In mark 1 verse 3 God makes the promise to his son to send John to prepare the way of the LORD. As Gathercole argues this a direct messianic passage of Isaiah 40 v 3 prepare the way of yahweeh. 

Gathercole takes this further by using Mark 12:35 - 37 where Jesus cites Psalm 110 v 1 yahweeh says to yahweeh, here Jesus is the second Lord and the reference is is merely to the fact that Jesus is Davids LORD. This is no prophet.

I will use one other high christology claim of christ towards his divinity.

Jesus Calimed to be the Son of Man everywhere in the gospels, it was the title he used the most to himself in the gospels. In Mark 2 when I quoted Lord of the sabbath he claims it here For the Son of man. In hebrew son of man is Ben ha Adam, meaning son of humanity. People may jesus think jesus is just calling himself a son of a man, but in fact he is applying daniel 7 to himself and shows it in graver detail at his trial. He states in all the synoptics for you shull see the son of man on the clouds of heaven seated at the right hand of god. this is no prophet lets read Daniel 7 

13 “I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

          that shall not be destroyed.

This is no prophet but the etnerla son of God. Gathercole argues saying this also shows his pre existance, if Daniel had already seen it.

Gathercole also argues that his main objective with this is to show jesus is pre existant in the synoptics.

The transfiguration in all synptic accounts but ill use mark 9. Gathercole argues this shows jesus transcending the heaven Earth divide. 

And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one [1] on earth could bleach them. 

Notice Jesus was a normal earthly looking man and then transformed as to what he will look like when in heaven, showing the heaven and earth divide, that he pre existed.

Many people use the heaven hierarchy, as to refer to jesus as not god. mark 13 32 states no one knows the hour nor the angels, not even the son but the father only. Jesus using his human nature he does not know, as  he is dependant on this spirit, but he also shows his divine nature, as Gathercole argues, he shows Jesus is showing some rank, by first naming man, then angels, the himself then the father. Jesus places himself between the angels and the father, showing he is a heavnely rank above the angels, showing himself to be god and pre existant.

Gathercole then argues the fact of the heavenly council, which is only things you could know if you pre existed. 

In luke 10 18 Jesus states to have seen Satan fall like lightning, as we see satan has already fallen in the old testement and is tempting people job 1 v 7. This shows jesus must of been there since the beginning.

In luke 10 20 jesus knows whos name are in the book of life, something he would only of known if he pre existed.

Gathercole also points out matthew 11, which i stated earlier that jesus has some sort of special authroity, that its only by him who can reveal the father, which shows his pre existance.

My last point on this Gathercole points out that spiritual beings like demons call jesus the son of god earlyy in his ministry, before anyone knows who he is, as we see in matthew 4 with satan. Now this could only be if jesus pre existed, as Demons and satan are fallen angels from heaven, showing they knew jesus before, as they knew who he was. 

I could go on for much longer, but showing like i have that jesus is god in the synoptics alone proves that he is pre existant, as jews believe there is no god but god and that he is not created.

I will now be talking about the gospel of John, which quite frankly like John a lot of liberal scholars claim its an evolutionary story of jesus, elavating him above the historical jesus.

As Gathercole has shown we still see a divine, pre existant jesus in the synoptics.

So why is John so different? 

The main reason along the side of conservative mainstream scholarship is John if written after the synoptics,which is the most common, targets his gospel against mystism and gnostics. Even though this had a counter fit, as the gnostics started using John out of context, as D A Carson (Ph.D University of Cambridge) shows John wanted to show a different side to Jesus. Remember Jesus ministry was 3 years, he would of said a lot more than what is contained in the synoptics and John brings another side to Jesus. 

Regarding the dating of John scholars use to believe John dated the last quarter of the second century, until P52 was discovered, which is a small papyri fragment of John 18 that dates to 125 AD, it turned scholarship and on its head. The second century dating has now been abondonded and majority of scholars date John to the late half of the first century.

CArson holds the view John probably write his gospel in 80 AD. There is good evidence, as Carson shows for a pre 65 AD dating to Johns gospel .e.g. John 21 19, is that you have peter by his death glorified god when chapter 21 was composed, well Peter died in the year 64.

The silnece of the destruction of the temple is another example of a pre 65 AD date, as it was destroyed in the year 70. 

Another point is the Pool of Bethseda mentioned in John 5 v 2. John describes the pool in detail as though he has seen it himslf. Carson points this out that Jhn writes in the present tence with historic force compared to the other gospel writers. The pool of Bethseda were changed by Herod Agrippa in 44 AD into a new wall which blocked the pools and he placed a roadway along the dam, and expanded the asclepieion into a large temple to Asclepius and Serapis. The pool was completely destroyed in 70 ad by the destruction of jersualem. For John to be talking about this, he is eaither writing, as D A carson suggests, as if its present but hes writing in the future of the event, as though he was there and has seen it himself or the view that John is writing,as though its still there in the present. This is also good evidence to show John was the beloved disciple, as his grave detail of jerusalem before the year 44 AD.

There is good evidence to also show a later date, as New testement scholar Robinson states that John write under the reign of emperor Domitian who reinged AD 81 - 96. But even Robinson states there is no evidence to this. \there is also strong evidence to show Jjohn was the last of the apostles and to write his gospel, as we see in Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus also states John lived to a very long life, Irenaeus states even surviving into the reign of Emperor Trajan in 98 - 117 ad. 

There is other evidence to show on bboth sides of the dating period, but carson raises the issue we have no actuall date, just inbetween the year 70 - 100. I would argue against that saying most likely the year 60 - 95.

I will do a more in depth commentry on Johns gospel regarding its history, its authentitcity, the beloved disciple and the evangelists jesus within 1st century palestineian juadism and ggreeco roman world.

God bless (sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes).

Did Jesus rise again: a brief outline tothe case for the ressurrection

Did Jesus Rise again: A brief outline for the case for the resurrection


The resurrection of Jesus is the heart of the Christian faith, as without it the Christian faith becomes nothing more than a hoax.

Defending the Christian faith within many topics has become more and more needed due to the increase in attacks on the gospel. From liberal scholars such as Bart Ehrman – atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Muslims such as Zakir Naik.

I will be working on four facts to Jesus that is rarely disputed by scholars

1.      Jesus was sentenced to be crucified by Pilate

2.    1. On the Sunday morning after his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers.

3.    2. Various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

4.    3. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite having nearly every predisposition to the contrary.

A liberal scholar named John Dominic Crossan believes Jesus rose again spiritually, but may have been left on the cross to hang and eaten by dogs.
I first of all want to examine his statement and whether or not it can be applied to Jesus. William lance craig a philosopher and lecturer in theology at the Talbot school of theology states, If we look at what happened to the body after the cross, then yes we would have to go on the customary that the body is usually hung up on the cross, but that is not what is being explained in the bible.

1 corinth 15, which scholars date within 2 – 10 years of the risen lord, states that jesus was buried in a tomb. The gospels also confirm this early creed in there writings. If we look at without even using the burial statement from the bible, which is enough proof; we can still be certain he was buried. Due to the Sabbath being the next day he would more likely be buried as now work can be done on the Sabbath. All scholars agree even liberals that Jesus having a notice above his head saying Jesus king of the Jews is historical and can be trusted, meaning he may have been taken down due to his authority. JDC is clearly using an assumption without using any source of evidence.
JDC also argues that Jesus may have risen spiritually. In response to this we need to customise ourselves with the jewish primary objective of how they viewed the resurrection. As Dr Craig points out in the Case for Christ After the flesh rotted away they would gather the bones and store them in a box, for when God would raise the dead back to life on the final day of Israel. This would completely contradict the Jewish custom of a resurrection.

Did the Disciples steal the body?

Liberals and atheists throughout the centuries have stated the disciples may have stole the body. This has been refuted many times on the contrary that the disciples then went and preached jesus rose from the dead and were killed for this belief, yet in there heart they knew they stole the body ( makes no sense). But anyway let’s examine.

Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever, investigated the writings of Luke in an apparent effort to undermine the Gospel writer's credentials as a historian, and to discredit the entire New Testament. After 30 years of study, however, Ramsay concluded, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians

. The large stone was moved, in spite of the Roman guards and seal

Jesus' tomb was secured in three ways:

(a) A large stone was rolled against it. It was customary to roll big stones against tombs; the stones were generally too big to be moved by just a few men, so levers were used to move them. Some have estimated that the stone that sealed Jesus' tomb weighed 1-1/2 to 2 two tons (1,361-1,814 Kilograms), which is the approximate weight of a midsize car.

(b) A Roman guard unit--which usually consisted of four soldiers--was stationed at the tomb. Roman guards were strictly disciplined fighting men held to the highest standards. Failure often required death by torturous and humiliating methods.

(c) The Roman seal was affixed to the stone that secured the tomb. The seal stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. Breaking the seal meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.¹

On resurrection Sunday morning, the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was that the large stone was moved.³ Certainly the entire guard unit would not have fallen asleep with torture and death as the consequences. But even if the guards did fall asleep, how could thieves have sneaked by the guards and moved the massive stone without waking them up?

2. The tomb was empty

Jesus' tomb was near Jerusalem (John 19:42). Had the tomb not been empty, claims of the resurrection, which were first made in Jerusalem, could not have been maintained for even one hour-- people in Jerusalem could have gone to the tomb to check for themselves.³

Both Jewish and Roman sources and admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth jeshu."³

3. Jesus' burial wrappings were in the tomb

The linen wrappings in the tomb amazed the disciples. Jesus had simply moved through the wrappings, apparently without a struggle, and laid the face cloth aside. Had Jesus' body been stolen, the thieves would not have taken the time to remove the wrappings or fold the face cloth.

4. There were many witnesses to Jesus' appearances

In studying an event in history, it is important to know how many participants or eyewitnesses were still alive when reports about the event were published. If the number was substantial, the event can be regarded as fairly well established, because the eyewitnesses could have refuted an inaccurate report. For instance, if several people witness a murder, and the police report about it contains numerous lies, the eyewitnesses can refute it.³

The apostle Paul wrote that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. What's more, most of the 500 were still alive when Paul was proclaiming the resurrection, so skeptics could simply question the eyewitnesses:

1 Cor 15:3-6 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep

5. New Testament accounts were circulated among people who were alive at the time of the resurrection

Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that New Testament accounts of the resurrection were written within the lifetimes of people who were alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have denied the accuracy of the Gospel writers' accounts

6. The followers of Christ were persecuted and killed for proclaiming the resurrection

Jesus' disciples fled when Jesus was arrested and taken away for trial prior to being crucified. They were apparently afraid that they would be imprisoned or killed for of their association with Jesus. Peter even denied that he knew Jesus. After Jesus was crucified and buried, they remained in hiding, afraid and depressed, until Mary and others came to tell them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why would these men, who had displayed such cowardice, risk their lives in going from city to city proclaiming the resurrection, if they did not truly believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? They certainly gained nothing for doing so. The disciples did not receive wealth or prestige for preaching the resurrection; there were no material benefits whatsoever. In fact, they were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to lions, tortured, and crucified for their preaching.³

Was jesus resurrection a hallucination?

Dr Arif Ahmed who is a philosopher at Cambridge university debated Gary Habermas on the resurrection of Christ and stated it could of been a hallucination, but only because many people saw him does not mean it never happened, as they could of.
Dr Gary Collins one of the most influential and qualified psychologists with a phd and teacher for twenty years and holds the chair for the national psychologists states:

Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a given group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce an hallucination in somebody else. Since a hallucination exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it.

Gary Habermas also states in his book the case for the resurrection, hallucinations are usually caused by drugs or body deprivation. With the sceptics’ of James and Thomas it also so slim for the chance of a hallucination, as the person needs to be expecting or anticipating a resurrection. On this point The disciples never got to grasp who Jesus was and not for once did they believe he would actually come back to life, they even questioned Mary when she told them.

The facts that point to a resurrection

1.      The disciples died for this belief and a risen Jesus and risked there lives preaching and gave up everything. They even died for there faith. People may say so did muhammads followers or muslims today. But the fact is these muslims have never seen Muhammad and muhammads followers followed a man who did no miracles and stated he seen an angel in a cave, when they never witnessed it themselves.

2.      Many people sceptics such as paul and james converted and preached and died for their faith. James and paul have not been questioned on being people who  never lived, as we find james in the jewish Talmud and Pauls expansion of writings.

3.      Many people from many nations left their faith in rabbinic Judaism and paganism to follow jesus even to death.

4.      1 corinth 15 is an early creed that dates to within a decade of jesus, making it the most historical fact to the belief in early Christianity to jesus.

5.      The change in social structure, as J P Moorland reports the jewish life was a way of life to a jew and to leave the Sabbath, jewish customs, the law, circumcision and believe in monotheistic but Trinitarian god, which the nature of GOD. The jews were tortured by hitler and crusades, they wouldn’t leave the law for anything but many did and fled the persecution of jews and romans in the first century for this carpenter boy from Nazareth, makes no sense.

6.      The sudden eruption of the church proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus.

Using liberal arguments to prove the resurrection

Many liberal scholars and even some conservative use many methods to get the historical Jesus. The most reliable method used in terms of the liberal perspective is the multiple attestation, which is used by  D.B Martin and Bart Ehrman, who believe jesus to be an apocryphal prophet.


Multiple attestation. When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is often the case that oral accounts pre-date written sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation. If one account used another account as a source, then a story present in all of these is in fact attested in only one independent source. Some scholars think that Mark's account was used as a source for one or more of the other accounts.

Now by using this sequence both Bart and D B martin believe that is more than source that is from Mark and John that is two sources, but is mark and matthew that is one source, as they believe matthew and luke copied mark and gospel q along with L for luke and M for Matthew, which is what is contained by oral tradition that is not in Q or Mark.
So lets continue

All gospels agree with Jesus claiming to be the son of man, the lord of the Sabbath and feeding the 500, proving jesus deity as the son of man is a messianic passage of Daniel 7 and claiming to be lord of the day of god, which is for him not man is blasphemy.
Other things that also should therefore be taken into consideration is if we are going to use this as finding the saying o the historical Jesus, why can’t we show consistency and use it for everything else. The gospels all quote joseph of aromethia, the king of the Jews above Jesus head, both Bart and D B Martin say this is historical. Both mark and john use jesus saying I AM in mark 14 and John 8, which is ego eima in greek, which is the name used by Yahweeh in exodus 3 14, in Hebrew meaning esher or esher eyer esher  (I AM who I AM). Therefore jesus is claiming to be GOD.
Now how we can use this for the resurrection by using consistency, as William Lane Craig says we must therefore accept the core belief to be true, as all gospels show the death, burial, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus, therefore this must also be historical when being consistent.
Even the skeptic Michael Grant in his book a historians review of the gospels, true, the discovery of the empty tomb is described somewhat different as it may seem, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient source, the evidence for the empty tomb is plausible and that the tomb was indeed found empty.
We can also be sure it wasn’t legendary due to the amount of manuscripts we have, the dating of the new testament to the 1^st century and 1 corinth 15 , which date so early. As the Greco – roman scholar A.N Sherwan White from Oxford University puts it: it would have been without preceding dent in history for any legend to have grown up that fast and significantly disort the gospels.

Even with this brief review for the case of the resurrection, we can be sure that Jesus rose again; as it is by grace we have been saved.

To conclude as N>T Wright of Durham university puts it, if Jesus never rose again, Christianity would not be here Period.

May God bless you all