Answering Deedat

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 11)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:18:00 +0000

In part ten of our series, we looked in depth at Mark 14:62, which was quoted by Ahmed Deedat in a very incomplete way. Again, his quotation was as follows: "… Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am . . . " (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:61-62.

We compared this with the verses in their fullness:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:61-62

We also noted that these verses were quoting from the book of Daniel chapter 7, verses 13 and 14:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

As a result, it was concluded that Jesus claimed that He:

1. Has authority
2. Has glory
3. Has sovereign power
4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.
5. Has an eternal dominion that will never pass away
6. Has a Kingdom that will never be destroyed.

It was no wonder that Ahmed Deedat would deliberately conceal the entirety of the verses in Mark. With this exalted presentation Christ gave of Himself in view, we proceed further to address Deedat and his claims. He writes:

“1. It reminds one of the 5000 (so-called original) Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament of which "NO TWO ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES", say the Jehovah's Witnesses. The "cultists" are now claiming the discovery of a staggering 24 thousand Manuscripts; to which of course the same stricture will apply. See "Is the Bible God's Word?" for further information.”

Firstly, no Christian claims that any of the thousands of Greek manuscripts that are in our possession today are original.

Secondly, no original manuscripts of the Qur’an exist either.

Thirdly, as Bart Ehrman points out, the New Testament is the best attested book of Antiquity.

Fourthly, the 24,000 manuscripts include The Old Testament and New Testament in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, and other languages, all agreeing doctrinally on the items of the Christian faith.

Fifthly, the Qur'an states that the Torah had been preserved in Surah 32:23, which reads “We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.” (Yusuf Ali translation).

Sixthly, Qur’an calls upon people of the gospel (i.e. the Christians) to judge what Allah has revealed in Surah 5:46-47, which reads : “46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” (Yusuf Ali translation).

Seventhly, when Uthman burned Qur’ans, he either burned authentic ones or corrupt ones. If they were corrupted, then Ahmed Deedat’s argument is lost, because the Qur’an also had become corrupted. If on the other hand, Uthman burned genuine Qur’an’s, then it seems that he set a precedent for burning the Qur’an as an acceptable practice.

Eighthly, according to Aisha, a goat ate the surahs on stoning and suckling: “Narrated Aisha: "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were written on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."(References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13)”. Indeed, they do not appear in the Quran.

Ninthly, Abdullah ibn Umar, the son of the second Caliph, Umar ibn Kattab affirms the fact that the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved:
“It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524)”

Tenthly, the original Arabic manuscripts were void of diacritical markings, whereas the Arabic version of the Qur’an today does contain diacritical marks. This is to say, the originals did not contain vowels whereas the modern versions do. Thus the meaning of the originals is unknown. Let us use a simple English example:

D-n p-ts c-ts –n th- b-g

Here are some possible renderings:

Dan puts cats on the bag
Dan puts cats in the bag
Dan puts cots in the bag
Don puts cuts on the bag
Den puts cuts on the bug
Den puts cats on the bug
Dan pats cats on the bag
Dan puts cats in the bog
Den pets cats in the bag

This simple illustration shows how differently groups of words can be interpreted when the vowels are missing. The same ambiguity applies to the original Arabic manuscripts. The fact that the modern versions have rendered the ancient in a particular way does not necessarily mean that they are true. There are indeed more points that could be made for the case of the Bible against the case for the Qur’an. Needless to say, it goes beyond the intended scope of this discussion, so we shall return back to the subject of the crucifixion of Jesus. Deedat writes:

“There was nothing blasphemous or treasonable in the simple avowal of Jesus (pbuh). "Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah," which meant the ANOINTED ONE or the APOINTED ONE. 1 Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God. We must divorce this notion from the paganised Christian doctrine of the incarnation, wherein God becomes man. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah, did not identify the Messiah with God. Indeed, the nature of Jewish monotheism wholely excludes such pagan connotations. "Son of God" is also another harmless expression in Jewish theology. God seems to have sons by the tons in the Jewish Bible. But if you are looking for trouble, you do not have to go far. You will find it round the corner. The High Priest was exultant. He felt that his rapier thrust had ripped open the defence of Jesus. To dramatise his contrived victory, he began renting his clothes.
"What need have we for any further witnesses? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." — (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:63-64”

There are a number of interesting claims made here by Deedat. They may be enumerated as follows:

1. Jesus did not commit blasphemy in His affirmation of being the Christ.
2. Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God.
3. Incarnation is a paganised Christian notion.
4. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah did not identify the Messiah with God.
5. Son of God is a harmless expression in Jewish theology.
6. God has sons by the tons in the Jewish bible.

Let us address these points one by one.

1. Jesus did not commit blasphemy in His affirmation of being the Christ.

I agree. Jesus certainly did not commit blasphemy. But on what grounds do we believe this? Christians believe that Jesus did not commit blasphemy because He was who He said He was. As pointed out previously, Ahmed Deedat neglected to mention the entirety of Mark 14:61-62, or even mention at all the verses these were drawing from – Daniel 7:13-14, wherein Jesus was claiming to be the Son of Man, having authotity, glory, power, an eternal kingdom, eternal dominion, and to be worshipped by people of all nations, tongues, etc. Is there anything in Deedat’s work that would even begin to suggest that he believed that these attributes all apply to Jesus? I would say absolutely not.

Deedat refers to Christ being the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning Anointed One. Anointed for What Ahmed Deedat? We never see this term being applied to Mohammed. Why not? This is something unique to Jesus. If we are to be consistent and allow all of the Messianic verses in the Old Testament to speak, we shall see why the Jews considered Jesus’ claims to be blasphemous.

2. Nowhere was the word Christ equated with God.

There are two approaches to this. Firstly we could look directly to the word Christ (Cristos in Greek) in the New Testament. Such passages from the gospels include:
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matthew 22:41-46 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 44 "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" 45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

This interesting passage shows that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation, and that David calls Him Lord (Psalms 110:1). Just a few verses later, we see that He has an eternal priesthood:
Psalms 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Matthew 23:10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

Luke 4:41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.

John 11:27 "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

Secondly, we could examine the Old Testament passages concerning the Messiah. Although there are many passages we could examine regarding the Messiah, we shall not cover them here. The reason for this is that it is not disputed by Muslims that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Indeed, Ahmed Deedat refers to Jesus as Messiah in Crucifixion or Crucifiction, devoting an entire section under the title “Messiah sobs for His people” To quote Ahmed Deedat himself in his book - Christ in Islam, Deedat writes:

“The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub", "to massage", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian form, "Christ" seems unique: befitting Jesus only.”

It is not necessary therefore to provide all of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament to establish this already agreed title for Jesus. If Muslims agree that Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed one, then they need to accept the Messianic prophecies that testify of Him. The question thus becomes, “What should we expect from this Messiah?” The bible answers this question very clearly:

DEITY

Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Psalms 2:12 “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

SUFFERING, CRUCIFIXION, RESURRECTION, ENTHRONEMENT, INTERCESSION

Psalms 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

3. Incarnation is a paganised Christian notion.

According to Isaiah 9:6, a prophecy long before the establishment of Christianity, this Messiah would be God and man. Thus, the incarnation of Christ recorded in the gospels of the New Testament is clearly not an invention of Christians. Isaiah 9:6 is also supported by Daniel 7:13-14, as already pointed out, the One with authority, glory, power, eternal dominion kingdom, and the object of worship of all nations.

4. The Jewish expectation of a Messiah did not identify the Messiah with God.

Peter (Matthew 16:16, 2 Peter 1:1), James (James 2:1), Andrew (Matthew 14:22,33,John 6:8-10), Paul (Ac 21:39,Phil 2:6), John(John 1:1), and Mary (Luke 1:47), were ALL Jews. There are too many more examples to note. The fact is that those who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, ALL worshipped Him and recognised Him as God. Those who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah ALL considered Him not to be God. Deedat’s sweeping statement that the Jewish expectation of a Messiah was not to identify Him as God is also refuted by the fact that the Wise men who found the Messiah, worshipped Him (Matthew 2:11). Obviously, they expected the Messiah to be God.

5. Son of God is a harmless expression in Jewish theology.

It is certainly true that the title Son of God is applied many times to people other than the Messiah. Let us first look at these examples:

NEPHILIM

Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful ; and they took wives for themselves, whomever * they chose.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

ANGELS

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

ISRAEL

Exodus 4:22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

ADAM

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If the title Son of God is applied to many people other than Jesus, how can Christians claim that Jesus is literally a Son of God or that the title is applied in a unique way to Him?

First of all, the term literal can be misleading. When we use the title “Son” and apply it to Jesus, Muslims often think that we are referring to a situation whereby God the Father takes a partner (e.g Mary), and produces a Son through sexual intercourse. This is not what we mean.

Son denotes a relationship between the 1st and 2nd persons of the Divine Trinity. Jesus takes a role of submitting to the Father. All that the Son does, speaks, and wills, is through taking the Father as His source. The Son expresses the Father. The Son is a representation of the Father. This is altogether related to the role that Jesus takes. Eternally, Christ the Son has existed with the Father. Jesus says:

John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”

We also see a distinction between the Angels, and the Son where the Father says:

Hebrews 1:7-8 “And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.”

We also see a distinction between prophets, and God’s Son in the parable of the vine-dressers:
Matthew 21:33-42

"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey.
When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third.
Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way.
Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.'
So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

Thus Christians make a distinction between those mentioned in the bible as being Sons of God and Jesus Christ being the unique Son of God, because both Jesus and the Father teach us this very distinction. Again, it does not mean that Jesus only came into existence at a particular point in time, rather it denotes an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

6. God has sons by the tons in the Jewish bible.

As pointed out above. The distinction is made between sons in the common usage applying to men and angels, and in a particular way as found in, among other passages, Hebrews 1:7-8 and Matthew 21:33-42.
To conclude here, did Jesus commit blasphemy? Most certainly He did not. Why? Because He was indeed the very person He claimed to be. Ahmed Deedat wants to obscure the meaning and implications of the Messiah as shown in both the Old and New Testament, and he has to. There is no other way for Deedat or indeed any Muslim to remain a muslim and represent the text of the Bible fairly, consistently, and accurately.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 10)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:02:00 +0000

This particular section will address an issue regarding Christ’s Kingdom. Although it is certainly not the focal point of the series of these messages, it is nevertheless profitable for us to consider the subject because Deedat brings up verses but only reports them in part to support His arguments. It is critical to see these verses in their totality and the surrounding issues that they imply because doing so will demonstrate the selectiveness and deception on Deedat’s part by obscuring such facts. For the moment however, we shall resume our discussion from where we left off.
In part nine, it seemed we were going to touch upon the subject of the trial itself, but we noted that Ahmed Deedat was continuing to go off-track, discussing Mohammed being listed as the most influential person of history among other things. Ahmed Deedat turns back to the topic at hand and mentions the political evils of the men who were determined to have Jesus executed.

“PREDETERMINED JUDGEMENT

The fate of Jesus (pbuh) was already sealed. Caiphas the High Priest, at the head of the Sanhedrin (a Religious Board of Jewish Deputies), was a man who would have recused himself in any civilised Court-of-Law, because of his prejudice against the defendant. He had already condemned Jesus to death without any hearing. He had recommended to his Council, even before the case that:-

"… it is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and the whole nation perish not." (HOLY BIBLE) John 11:50”

It comes as no surprise to us to hear that Jesus was prejudged by evil men. We notice by following the text that Caiaphas had prophesied concerned the death of Jesus as mentioned in the next few verses:

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,
52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Deedat continues:

“Jesus had to be liquidated! There was no question of right or wrong; Justice or injustice; it was "EXPEDIENT"! The trial was a farce. By hook or by crook they would have Jesus convicted and done away with. In the middle of the night, what we might call at 2 o'clock in the morning, the Jews had mustered up false witnesses to testify against Jesus. A trial, past midnight was against Jewish practice; but who cares? Despite sympathetic and encouraging prosecutors and jurors, the false witnesses could not tally in their evidences.

It was too much for Jesus. He could not hold his peace. He had to remonstrate. He made a telling plea in his own defence, saying:
"... I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always gather; and in secret have 1 said nothing." (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:20”

It is certainly true that Jesus did not deserve the treatment he received from the Jews. It comes as no surprise to Christians that the trial was a farce, since Pilate who was in the position of judgement, personally found nothing to convict Jesus with, and set a murderer free in His place. Yes, Jesus was the perfect, sinless, unblemished lamb, and as such was the supreme candidate to save God’s people from their sins.

”In essence, he said that he expounded no secret or esoteric doctrines. He did not teach anything in private which he would not be prepared to proclaim in public. In which case, the Jews would have been able to line up an army of witnesses to testify against him. But what a farce!”

Well, all I can say in response to this is that Jesus had an entire crowd of people who wanted Him dead, shouting “Crucify Him!”, and again, I agree that it was a complete mistrial. This doesn’t prove anything against the crucifixion however, it simply strengthens the testimony of Jesus being the unblemished lamb. Deedat continues:

“The Jews could not get even two to agree1 in their allegations! "But neither did their
witness agree together" - (Mark 14:59). His argument was so potent that an officer
standing by was provoked to strike him in silence. Did that intimidate Jesus? No! Instead, he
protested further:

". . . if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why
smitest thou me?"

The victim was slipping out from between their fingers. It was now or never. Legally they
could not incriminate him. Direct intervention was necessary. The High Priest interjects with a
side thrust. Tell us then:

". . . Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am . . ."(Mark 14:61-62)”

Indeed the testimonies against Jesus were false and contradictory. Now, what’s interesting are these verses here mentioned above by Deedat – Mark 14:61-62. I would like to post the entirety of those two verses as well as the two verses that come after it. Let us look therefore at Mark 14:61-64:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.
64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Conveniently, we see that Ahmed Deedat failed to give us the entirety of verse 62. This verse speaks of Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man sitting at the right Hand of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven. Deedat Attempted to condense it down to make it sound as though Jesus was accused of blasphemy simply for referring to Himself as the Christ or the Son of the blessed One. Jesus was saying much more than that, His powerful language is taken from the book of Daniel chapter 7 verses 13 and 14:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here we see that the Son of Man:
1. Has authority
2. Has glory
3. Has sovereign power
4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.
5. Has an eternal dominion that will never pass away
6. Has a Kingdom that will never be destroyed.

Let us examine these points one by one.

1. Authority

Matthew 28:18 – “Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” We note first the words “given to me”. Muslims will no doubt be quick to point out that this means that Jesus had no authority of His own. What they will fail to point out however is that this verse takes place after the resurrection. This is a point of great significance because we know that Jesus emptied Himself and took the form of a slave in His incarnation and earthly sojourn (Philippians 2:6-8). He put aside His divine prerogatives, but following His resurrection, He entered into glory, and took back His position of authority and power. (Philippians 2:9-11). As such, this verse is not saying simply that Jesus received authority from the Father as something that did not originally belong to Him, rather it is a restoration back to that position of authority following Christ’s resurrection.

Before we go on to point number 2, we must not so quickly gloss over the details regarding the authority Christ actually received. As mentioned above in Matthew 28:18, this was authority over all things in the heavens and in the earth. Does this sound like an ordinary man? Did any prophet ever have such authority? Was any prophet ever given such authority? Let’s answer this question by looking to what I think would be the three most powerful figures to bring to the case: Adam, Moses, and Mohammed. Now of course, Christians do not consider Adam to be a prophet (nor obviously Mohammed), but as Muslims do, we shall look to these three individuals. I have chosen these three in particular for a purpose, and we shall see why:

Adam: According to the Qur’an, Allah commanded the angels to worship Him. Surah 2:34 says – “And behold We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject Faith.” (YUSUF ALI)

The Muslim might say, “Jesus isn’t unique in having authority over heaven and earth. Here the angels are worshipping Adam, so Adam has the same kind of authority given to Him by Allah” The problems with this are too numerous to address, but let’s respond to two major problems here:

(1) Bowing down before anyone but Allah is Shirk. Thus Allah was actually commanding His angels to commit Shirk.

(2) Verse 36 of the Qur’an shows that Adam was thrown out of Paradise for his sin. This account is echoed in Surah 7:24. If Adam was to be thrown out of paradise, he certainly had no authority regarding paradise. Nor did he have authority over Satan who seduced he and his wife.

Moses: While Adam was denied the dominion of the heavenly paradise, Moses was denied the earthly Good Land. In Numbers 20:12 we read “But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them." If Adam and Moses were to have authority of the heavens and the earth, then they would have the authority to enter into paradise and the good land respectively, but this is not what we see.

Mohammed: Mohammed speaks of the authority of the heavens and earth. Does he say that this authority has been given to him? Let us see: Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believed in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." Mohammed here, rather than say that dominion of the heavens and the earth have been given to him, simply states that such dominion belongs to Allah. This thought is repeated in 5:120 – “Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is therein, and He is Able to do all things.” Again 24:42 – “And unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and unto Allah is the journeying.”

The muslim may interject, citing Surah 2:247 “Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah is All-Embracing, and He knoweth all things." Unfortunately for the muslim, this verse says nothing about authority over the heavens and the earth. Nor does it mention Mohammed’s name. In fact this particular verse is speaking of the authority of kingship of Saul whom Allah is said to have raised up as an authority over the Israelites. Being a king over the Israelites is obviously not equivalent to having all authority over the heavens and the earth.

It would be useful to point out two particular instances which demonstrate that Mohammed certainly did not have authority over the heavens and the earth and all therin:

“Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)... “(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660) We see here that rather than having all authority, Mohammed was a victim of black magic. He thought he was engaging in certain activities when he was in fact not doing so. Obviously someone or something had exercised some kind of authority over Mohammed to deceive him into thinking things that were untrue. We learn that it was in fact a Jew who used a comb. Yes, that’s right, a comb:

Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, "I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, "What is the ailment of this man?" The other replied, 'He has been bewitched" The first asked, 'Who has bewitched him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin Al-A'sam.' The first one asked, 'What material has he used?' The other replied, 'A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.' The first asked, 'Where is that?' The other replied, 'It is in the well of Dharwan.' " So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, "Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils." I asked, "Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?" He said, "No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people." Later on the well was filled up with earth.

It is safe to say that Mohammed was not given all authority over heaven and earth and all therein. Jesus Christ on the other hand did receive all authority, because He was whom He claimed to be: the divine Son of God, even God Himself manifest in the flesh. Such claims of course were vindicated through His being raised from the dead.

2. Glory

Isaiah 48:11 says “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.” We never see Mohammed claiming to have received glory from God. Because Jesus Christ is God, He is simply receiving back the glory which He had with the Father before the foundation of the world – John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”. We see no such words from Adam, Moses, David, Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Mohammed, or anyone. Jesus is unique here. With the verse from John 17:5, we also see the eternality of Jesus Christ, that is, that He existed prior to the very creation of the world.

3. Sovereign Power

Being under the authority of black magic already shows that Mohammed certainly did not have sovereign power. He never claimed having it, nor did any of the Lord’s servants. This again is something unique to Jesus. Adam also had no power over the evil one, Satan. As for Moses, He never claims sovereign power for Himself, nor does God ever give Him sovereign power. By contrast, we see that He attributes sovereignty to God alone:

Exo 23:17 -"Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord.”

Deut 3:24 - "O Sovereign Lord, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?”

Deut 9:26 – “I prayed to the Lord and said, "O Sovereign Lord, do not destroy your people, your own inheritance that you redeemed by your great power and brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.”

Exodus 34:23 – “Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.”

4. Is worshipped by all peoples, nations and men of every language.

According to the Qur’an, no one should be worshipped, except Allah. Surah 3:64 says – “Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).”

As mentioned previously, Surah 2:34 seems to be stating that the angels worshipped Adam. This would pose a problem for Muslims because the command comes from Allah Himself. The only way that Muslims can preserve the integrity of Allah in this verse is to say that the command is merely to bow before Adam in the way of respect, and not worship. This being the case, it would show indeed that no man receives the worship of peoples of all nations and languages but the God-man, Jesus Christ.

5. Eternal Kingdom and Eternal Dominion

No one is described as having an eternal kingdom or dominion in the Bible or Qur’an except God:

Surah 2:107 - Do you not know that Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides Allah you have no guardian or helper?

Surah 3:189 - And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Allah has power over all things.

Surah 5:18 - And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

Surah 5:40 - Do you not know that Allah-- His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He chastises whom He pleases; and forgives whom He pleases and Allah has power over all things.

Surah 5:120 - Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is in them; and He has power over all things.

Sura 6:73 And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth with truth, and on the day He says: Be, it is. His word is the truth, and His is the kingdom on the day when the trumpet shall be blown; the Knower of the unseen and the seen; and He is the Wise, the Aware.

Sura 7:158 Say: O people! surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth there is no god but He; He brings to life and causes to die therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may walk in the right way.

Sura 9:116 – “Surely Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He brings to life and causes to die; and there is not for you besides Allah any Guardian or Helper.”

It must be mentioned that the Qur’an does speak of Allah giving a kingdom to those whom it pleases:

Surah 2:247 - And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Amplegiving, Knowing.

Surah 2:251 - So they put them to flight by Allah's permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased. And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures.

Surah 2:258 - Have you not considered him (Namrud) who disputed with Ibrahim about his Lord, because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Ibrahim said: My Lord is He who gives life and causes to die, he said: I give life and cause death. Ibrahim said: So surely Allah causes the sun to rise from the east, then make it rise from the west; thus he who disbelieved was confounded; and Allah does not guide aright the unjust people.

Surah 3:26 Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thine hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things.

However, all of these verses are talking about an earthly Kingdom. We know that the age of the kings (earthly) ended when Israel was taken into captivity into Babylon. The kingship held by Saul,David, and Solomon for example, were of an earthly kingdom. Not only so, but they did not have an eternal kingdom, We know this by the following verses:

Saul:

1 Samuel 13:1 – “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.”

David

2 Samuel 5:4 – “David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.”

1 Chronicles 18:14 – “David reigned over all Israel, doing what was just and right for all his people.”

Solomon:

1 Kings 10:23 – “King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth.”

King Cyrus

Interestingly, a gentile king is said to have received kingship over all the earth: This was King Cyrus of Persia, but again, this was temporary and earthly:

Ezra 1:2 – “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah.”

Indeed, the Persian empire had tremendous power, but We know that the Persian Empire lost its control over all the kingdoms of the earth, especially at the hands of Alexander the great. One only has to look at the world today and observe that no such world-wide Persian empire exists. There is but the modern day country of Iran.

Jesus Christ

By contrast, we see from the aforementioned verses in Daniel 7:13-14, that Jesus has an eternal kingdom, and everlasting dominion that would not pass away. Let us look at some further verses speaking of this kingdom:

John 18:36 – “Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Rev 11:15 – “The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."

Luke 1:32-33 – “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Notice in John 18:36, that Jesus gives the reason not to fight to prevent Jesus’ arrest – Because His kingdom was not of the world. In other words, a heavenly Kingdom. This again serves to refute Ahmed Deedat’s theory that Jesus wanted to start a Jihad. We also see that Christ’s kingdom is not merely earthly. Both Luke 1:32-33 and Revelation 11:15 testify to the eternality of this kingdom, something that none of the earthly kings enjoyed. Even Cyrus the great’s kingdom of all the earth was defeated.

It becomes obvious to the Christian reader as to why Deedat would obscure the totality of Mark 14:61-62. We know that Christ is the Son of Man, with all authority, power, sovereignty, an eternal Kingdom and is to be worshipped by all people. As pointed out at the beginning of this particular section of our series, it has not been the original intention to focus on the subject of Christ’s Kingdom, or the inferences that such details bring, but I do believe it still constituted a helpful and insightful component to our discussion.

With this exalted view of Christ, we shall continue in the next part to see if Ahmed Deedat’s perspective on the charges of blasphemy are based upon sound reasoning, and consistent interpretation of scripture, or if it is simply another example of what happens when one is forced by his own theological presuppositions to strain the text of scripture. I hope this perhaps somewhat tangential discussion has nevertheless been an interesting and helpful one.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 9)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:21:00 +0000

In part eight, we again addressed the allegations of Deedat, who attempts to paint a violent, bloodthirsty picture of Jesus Christ. We saw that Deedat gave verses out of context, ignoring the nature of the parables given and the times they were referring to. We saw that Jesus taught his disciples that they would face martyrdom, which indeed they did. Keep in mind, Deedat has been speaking at length now on just about anything but the crucifixion itself.

Having exhausted his arguments against the New Testament, Ahmed Deedat now turns his attention to the Old Testament. Let us read what Deedat has to say.

“In view of these solemn pronouncements and his repeated vitriolic outbursts against the learned men of his time, if the sword of Peter had prevailed, we would have witnessed a massacre without compunction, equal to that of his ancestor Joshua (meaning Jehova — Saviour)2 who utterly destroyed all that was in Jericho:
"both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the SWORD." (HOLY BIBLE) Joshua 6:21”
According to Deedat, the Jihad Jesus was going to fight would have been equal to that of Joshua. In other words, Jesus and his followers would have slaughtered the whole city, with two swords? Jesus couldn’t overcome a band of men with Judas, and yet he plans to wipe out an entire city? Deedat says, “if only Peter’s sword had prevailed.” But wasn’t Jesus the one who said “Do you not think I can summon more than twelve legions of angels at my command?” The more Deedat tries to build up his fanciful story, the more it falls apart.

Deedat continues:

“And the Gospel writers would not have been slow in putting words into the mouth of Jesus, word for word, as fulfilment of prophecies VATICINIUM EX EVENTU (prophecies after the event) as recorded3 of his "father" (?) David.
1. Means to KILL. Breaking the commandment — "Thou shalt not kill. — (Exodus 20:13)

2. Joshua: a type of Christ, says C.I. Scofield, D.D. in his Bible commentary.
3. His "father's" record: 'The conquered Ammonites he treated with even greater ferocity, tearing and hewing some of them in pieces with harrows, axes, and saws; and roasting others in brick-kilns". Maitlands comment on 2 Samuels Chs. 8 to 12 in "Jewish Literature and Modern Education" - (page 21)”

Here Deedat is accusing Joshua of breaking the law. In his discussion of the gospel accounts, he is accusing Jesus of wanting to do the same. Specifically, we are talking about the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

The law is forbidding the sin of murder. However, clearly the law taught that those who violated the law were to be put to death. To kill does not automatically mean to murder. In fact many countries today have an equivalent punishment for serious violation of the law, i.e. the death penalty, which is not murder. Since God as the author of life and taker of life, as well as the law giver, has every right to punish justly by death, those who commit grave sin, we cannot call God a murderer. Indeed we know that the Qur’an teaches killing:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.- Surah 9:5 (YUSUF ALI)

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. – Surah 2:191 (YUSUF ALI)

And yet would the Muslim accept that these verses advocate murder? Well, some within the extremist sects such as Wahabi, but generally, Muslims would say that these verses do not teach that killing is equated with murder and that murder is permissible in Islam.

Is Joshua a type of Christ? Yes. Joshua defeated God’s enemies in the Old Testament by the sword. Jesus defeated Satan upon the cross. Jesus also subdued His religious opponents by the word of God. Never once in the New Testament do we see Jesus using violence of any kind let alone teach it as an acceptable practice.

As for the Ammonites in 2 Samuel chapters 8 -12, they were people who worshipped the false deity Molech, through child sacrifices with fire. Incidentally this is the same God worshipped by the Canaanites. God had every right to judge the Canaanites and Ammonites for their wicked sins, whether directly or indirectly through His people.

The next segment from Deedat is basically a recap of his previous arguments which have already been thoroughly refuted:

“FAILURE, AND TRIAL
The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. The sabre-rattling in the Garden had proved abortive. As there is a reward for success, likewise there is a price for failure. The odds are heavy! Hence the trial, the tribulation, the turmoil and the sweat and blood.
With heavy hands, the Roman soldiers dragged Jesus (pbuh) from Gethsemane to Annas, and from Annas to Caiphas the High Priest, and on to the Sanhedrin as directed by the Jews, for trial and execution.
Whilst Jesus was being manhandled and buffeted towards his doom, where were his heroes who were beating their breasts with the war-cry: "Master, we are prepared to die for you. Master, we are prepared to go to prison for you!" ? St. Mark, the first of the Gospel writers, un-ashamedly and without any apology reveals:
"AND THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM, AND FLED." (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:50
The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament could not find a similar dastardly desertion in the Jewish Bible1 to fulfill prophecy. If there was, they would have been quick to exploit it.“
Deedat expresses further hatred towards Christians:

“In a debate between Islam and Christianity, on SABC T.V. one of the participants, claiming to be "reborn", gloated over the word DESERTION. He articulated the word with such relish —D-E-S-E-R-T-I-O-N — which must have left a taste of triumph in the mouth of the cultists, instead of the bitterness of shame and defeat. The Bible-thumpers have developed a new sickness of glamorising despicability and ignominy. Everyone, male or female, of these cultists, will not fail to relate their peccadillos, their adulteries and bestialities, their drinkings and druggings. It appears that one must have been part of the dregs of humanity to become a candidate for this "born again" cult. “
Notice how he associates Christians with the worst kind of evil. It reminds me of some comforting words in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 5:

11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Finally, we come to the trials of Jesus. We are now in Chapter 6, page 18 of Deedat’s work “Crucifixion or Crucifiction”. We have seen a lot of words, a lot of claims, a lot of insults, but very little substance. Deedat writes:

GONE IN HIS HOUR OF NEED
In the history of the world, there is no parallel of such a contemptible betrayal. From the beginning to the end, Jesus (pbuh) received the most shabby response from his chosen ones. Professor Momerie succinctly sums up the "Disciples" and their response to the Master:
"HIS IMMEDIATE DISCIPLES WERE ALWAYS MISUNDERSTANDING HIM AND HIS WORKS. WANTING HIM TO DECLARE HIMSELF KING OF THE JEWS: WANTING HIM TO CALL DOWN FIRE FROM HEAVEN, WANTING TO SIT ON HIS RIGHT HAND AND ON HIS LEFT HAND IN HIS KINGDOM; WANTING HIM TO SHOW THEM THE FATHER, TO MAKE GOD VISIBLE TO THEIR BODILY EYES: WANTING HIM TO DO, AND WANTING TO DO THEMSELVES, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS GREAT PLAN. THIS WAS HOW THEY TREATED HIM UNTIL THE END. AND WHEN THAT CAME, THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM. AND FLED."

I see nothing here to argue with. I would agree that the disciples indeed constantly misunderstood that ways of Jesus and went against His ways. Notice the words quoted by Deedat: “anything and everything that was incompatible with His great plan.” What was this great plan? It was to become the Saviour, providing salvation through His death upon the cross.

Wanting to add insult to injury, Deedat attempts to show how superior Mohammed was to Jesus:

If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Influential Man in History" - Michael M. Hart;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Successful of all Religious Personalties" - Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Leader of all Times" - Jules Masserman in the "TIME" Magazine;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Man that ever Lived" - Lamartine in his "History of the Turks";
THEN IT CAN BE CLAIMED WITH JUSTIFICATION THAT Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of all of God’s Messengers".
Despite the fact that Mohammed’s success has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, we briefly address each claim:

Most influential? Jesus Christ is God. Considering He created the entire universe, came in the flesh, has 66 Divine books which speak uniquely and extensively about Him, changed the world calendar, influenced world culture, influenced world politics, and has the largest number of followers in the world today, I would say He completely unequivocally outshines Mohammed.

Most successful? Mohammed is dead in his grave awaiting judgement. Jesus is alive, enthroned in heaven with all glory, having the name which is above any name and will return to judge all men INCLUDING Mohammed.

Greatest Leader?: Mohammed spread Islam by the sword. Jesus spread His message by peace and love.

Greatest Man? Jesus Christ was Sinless. Mohammed had to repent more than 70 times a day for His sins. Jesus died for sinners to save them. Mohammed killed those who opposed Him.

There is no comparison between Jesus Christ and Mohammed.

Deedat writes:

“The disciples of Jesus always misunderstood him. His nation, the Jews, always misrepresented his utterances, AND his so-called followers are always misinterpreting his teachings, even to this day. If Jesus were a Japanese instead of being a Jew, he would most assuredly have committed honourable "HARA-KIRI" (suicide) rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of his followers.”

It is most unusual indeed that Ahmed Deedat claims that Jesus would “most assuredly” have committed suicide rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of His followers. I find such a statement to be quite priceless. It seems that Deedat considers suicide to be most honourable simply for being rejected, and yet cannot accept Jesus being crucified willingly for the awesome purpose of redeeming man back to God. Truly remarkable.

In the next post, we will get into the trial itself. It has taken us a long time to get there, and I appreciate everyone who is following this through with me. I hope that this series is opening your eyes to see the kind of apologist Ahmed Deedat was. With no intended disrespect for the dead, I would say that his work can be dismissed by anyone that has a reasonable level of discernment.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 8)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:20:00 +0000

By now we should be quite clear that Ahmed Deedat showed no respect to the text of the bible. In order to support his wild theories, he had to go to extreme lengths to change the simple and clear thoughts portrayed. We have seen Deedat accuse Jesus of wanting to start a Jihad, miscalculating the cooperation from His followers and the degree of opposition He would face, and resist the will of the Father to suffer an all-inclusive death, whereby the sins of the world would be placed upon Him to redeem mankind.

Thus far, he has not even come close to successfully undermine the credibility of the gospel accounts. We see familiar argumentation from Deedat as we press on:

“CHANGE OF STRATEGY

Did Jesus not know the truth of this statement when he ordered his disciples to sell their garments and buy SWORDS? He surely did! Then why the contradiction now? There is really no contradiction! The situation changes, so the strategy must also change. He had sense enough to realise that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretence of resistance.”
There is really no need to respond to this statement as we have already clearly demonstrated that the scenario being painted by Deedat is not a result of careful analysis of the scripture, but simply an issue of a rather fertile imagination.

Let us see if his next section, titled “Prince of peace” fares any better:

”PRINCE OF PEACE???
Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:
. . . and SLAY1 them before me." (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27”
The title prince of peace comes from a prophetic passage in the Old Testament. In the book of Isaiah 9:6 we read:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

We note in passing, that the title “Prince of Peace” is just one of many titles here applied to the coming messiah. We find that He is called “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father”. Deedat says that we overlook the other side of His nature. Yet I would submit that it is the Muslims who overlook His eternal, uncreated, indestructible, incorruptible, divine nature.

Deedat tries to add shock value here by quoting half a verse without providing any context. Since we believe that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching and correction (2 Tim 3:16), we post Luke 19 in its entirety and derive the interpretation from the text rather than forcing our own thoughts upon the text:

19:1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.
19:2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.
19:3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable * because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.
19:4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.
19:5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
19:6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.
19:7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
19:11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable , because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
19:12 So He said, "A nobleman, * went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
19:13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until * I come back.'
19:14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
19:15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
19:16 "The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
19:17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
19:18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19:19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
19:20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
19:22 "He *said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow ?
19:23 'Then why * did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest ?'
19:24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
19:25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
19:26 "I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
19:28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
19:29 When He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples,
19:30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you; there, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one * yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
19:31 "If anyone asks you, 'Why * are you untying it?' you shall say, 'The Lord has need of it.' "
19:32 So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them.
19:33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt ?"
19:34 They said, "The Lord has need of it."
19:35 They brought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and put Jesus on it.
19:36 As He was going, they were spreading their coats on the road.
19:37 As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,
19:38 shouting: "BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest !"
19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."
19:40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
19:41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
19:42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace ! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
19:43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because * you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
19:45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
19:47 And He was teaching daily * in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
19:48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said.

We notice first and foremost, that the words spoken in verse 27 are those in a parable (verse 11). Hence, Jesus is not commanding His disciples there and then to slay the people before Him. As much as Deedat wants to show Jesus committing violence in the gospels, he cannot do so. In fact, Jesus says emphatically that He came to save that which was lost.

Then Muslim will object and say “But the master is surely referring to Jesus Christ Himself” to which I would agree, however, this is referring to the end times, not the time of Jesus’ disciples.

Verse 11 tells us, that people supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. Jesus speaks this parable to correct them. Note verse 41 talks about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He then goes on to give a prophetic utterance in verse 43, speaking of the times when violence would come upon them. “For the days will come”, show that He was obviously speaking of the future, not the present. This matches the prophecies in Revelation concerning the end times when the antichrist will make war against the Lamb (Jesus) –

"These will wage war against the Lamb , and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14.

Those who make war with Christ in Revelation 17:14 correspond to the enemies in Luke 19:27, those who hated Him in verse 14. What we see is an example of such persons who hate Jesus and do not desire for Him to reign over them in Luke 19:47.

As we can see, by allowing the text to be read in its entirety, the notion that Jesus is slaying people in the gospels is duly refuted. On the contrary He is weeping over Jerusalem and coming to them in the form of a slave to save them who are lost.

It should be mentioned that a Muslim has no position to condemn the battle of Armageddon as unnecessary violence by Jesus for 2 simple reasons:

1. It is the enemies of Christ who initiate the war (Rev 17:14)
2. Islam itself teaches a violent end-times scenario as well:

As per point 2 above, we read:

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159)

We note the reference to Surah 4:159 mentioned above:
“There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them”

Putting Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657 together with Surah 4:159, we find that apparently Jesus is going to kill Jews and Christians in the last day. If the muslim has a problem with end times wars in Revelation, then they will have to throw out Bukhari and the Quran.
Not surprisingly, Deedat uses more verses from the bible as He continues to paint a violent picture of Jesus. Let us take a look at them:

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD." (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION." (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51”

Let us first address Matthew 10:34. I provide the surrounding context:

10:8 "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
10:9 "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,
10:10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
10:11 "And whatever * city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.
10:12 "As you enter the house, give it your greeting.
10:13 "If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.
10:14 "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
10:15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
10:17 "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;
10:18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake , as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.
10:20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
10:21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
10:22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.
10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master.
10:25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household !
10:26 "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
10:27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.
10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable * to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent ? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
10:31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
10:33 "But whoever * denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
10:35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
10:36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
10:38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
10:39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
10:40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.
10:41 "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
10:42 "And whoever * in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

We note from verses 8-10, that rather than being a slaughter mission, the disciples are taught to heal people and give things freely to them. Does this sound like something you do to people you are fighting?

The disciples are taught to go into a house and give it their blessing. And what of those homes that do not receive them? Kill them? No, they are taught simply to take back their blessing, shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next (verses 13-14). In fact, the consequences will come to that city not on the day of preaching but on the day of judgement (verse 15).

We reacquaint ourselves with verse 16 showing that the disciples are to be as innocent as doves. That does not sound like killing to me. In fact, it describes the opposers as wolves, not the disciples.

The verses never instruct the disciples to kill anyone. It does comfort them however by telling them not to fear those who can kill them physically, but rather to fear God who can destroy the soul. (verse 28)

What then did Jesus mean when He said that He would bring a sword if it doesn’t mean that He encouraged His disciples to engage in violence? Well there are 2 possible interpretations that could fit:

1. Jesus was speaking of the spiritual sword, which is His word (Hebrews 4:12) which was to be brought through the preaching of the gospel.
2. Jesus was speaking of the consequences of having the gospel announced, i.e. that the sword (physical) would be brought against the disciples by their opposers who would kill them.
As for Luke 12:49-51, these passages are not teaching that Jesus will slaughter people with a sword.

12:49 "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled !
12:50 "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished !
12:51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth ? I tell you, no, but rather division;

Verse 50 talks about Jesus desiring to undergo baptism. Why would that be? Was He not already baptised in Luke 3:21? Why does He mention being baptized in 12:50? Christ here was talking about His death. He mentions this in Mark 10:38 which reads:

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ?"

Jesus spoke these words to James and John after they asked the Lord if they could sit with Him on His left and right side in the glory of his kingdom. In this verse He not only mentions the baptism, but the cup. When we put this together with His prayer to the Father in Gethsemane for the cup to pass from Him, we see clearly that this is talking about death, about martyrdom. When we look therefore at 12:49-51 in this light, we see:

(1) Jesus was determined to go to the cross.
(2) His ministry was leading up to this climatic point which would ultimately bring great persecution, great division, between those who follow Him and those who reject Him.
(3) His followers could expect to follow in the path of His death.

But we are still left with the fire in verse 49. What could it mean that Jesus wanted to cast fire upon the earth? I believe this is referring to His desire to pour out His spirit upon all flesh. We see this prophesied in Joel 2:28 -

"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

We see the fulfilment of this in Acts 2:2-4 -

2:2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
2:3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.
2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Again, by allowing all of scripture to speak, we do not need to force an idea onto the text which is foreign. Jesus prepared His followers for martyrdom, but never commanded to kill. His desire to create division was to call His true seekers out to follow Him. And His desire to cast fire upon the earth, was not to commit some form of pyromania, but rather the pouring out of His Spirit upon His people to cause them to spread the word of God with all boldness.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 7)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:14:00 +0000

In part six, I continued looking at the Genesis account of Abraham, Isaac, and the sacrifice as a type of the Father giving the son, the lamb of God as means of redemption for mankind.
Ahmed Deedat turns his discussion to the subject of original sin. He writes:
“Major Yeats-Brown, in his "Life of a Bengal Lancer", summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence:
"NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS CURSE."”

According to Deedat, it is a grotesque idea that mankind inherited sin from the father of the human race, Adam.

Yet we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 4:611—The Prophet said, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.”

So Mohammed himself is basically saying that the reason why women betray their husbands is because of the sin of Eve. If that is the case, then why would it be so great a leap to say that were it not for the sin of Eve (and Adam), then we too would not have the nature of sin?

The Qur’an itself describes the universal sinful condition of man: Quran 16:61
“If Allah were to take mankind to task for their wrong-doing, he would not leave hereon a living creature, but He reprieveth them to an appointed term, and when their term cometh they cannot put (it) off an hour nor (yet) advance (it).”

And again in 35:45 -
“If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily God has in His sight all His Servants.”

Thus, Deedat’s problem with the doctrine of original sin becomes irrelevant. Whether or not he wants to accept the fact that we inherited our sin nature from Adam, he is bound by his Qur’an to accept the fact that everyone upon the earth has sinned against God and are subject to his wrath or mercy. Indeed, even Mohammed himself described his own sinful nature:
Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day."

Three questions I would ask a muslim are:

1. Would you consider yourself to be more righteous than Mohammed?
2. How many times a day do you ask Allah for forgiveness?
3. Given that any good muslim would say they are no more righteous than Mohammed, and that they pray less often than Mohammed for forgiveness, how can you have any assurance that you have a good stand before Allah?

We see the awful predicament that the Muslim is left in. His own qur’an shows that everyone deserves the wrath of God due to their sin, and Mohammed according to Bukhari asked for forgiveness more than seventy times a day. Is this not a desperate cry out for the need of redemption?

What about Jesus Christ? We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641 -

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan"

This Hadith is in perfect agreement with the Quran, in Surah 3:36 we read:

“And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast” (YUSUF ALI)

What we have here is the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and the universal problem of sin in mankind. Even Mohammed recognised his own desperate need for forgiveness.

Now there are three ways that God could approach this problem:

1. Come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to be offered up as a perfect sin sacrifice for mankind.

2. Simply forgive the sins without the need of a sacrifice.

3. Allow all of mankind to perish.

Of these three possible outcomes, only the first outcome allows God to exhibit both His mercy and His Justice. The second outcome exhibits God’s mercy, but it violates His justice, because the sin goes unpunished. The third outcome preserves God’s justice but it suppresses His mercy.

Upon asking Muslims, “Will you go to paradise when you die?” I receive interesting responses. They will tend to say, “I don’t know, it is up to Allah”. So I ask them, “But is Allah not the most gracious and most merciful one?” They will reply, “Yes He is. But it is up to Him in the end whether He wants to send us to paradise or to hell.”

On the surface, this sounds similar to Paul’s teaching in Roman’s chapter 9, whereupon God says that He will have mercy upon whom He wills. But the difference here is that God’s mercy in the Christian world-view is found in the person of Jesus Christ who accomplished redemption for the elect. In Islam, a works-based religion, it seems that not even the good works of a Muslim will be enough to satisfy Allah, because at the end of the day, the Muslim will still require His mercy.

From this we must draw two possible conclusions:

1. Salvation in Islam is not based upon justice, fairness, or righteousness.
2. Every single muslim has a number of bad works which account more heavily than their good works.

Contrast this with the bible which teaches that salvation is based upon God’s justice that was enacted upon His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, accounting for the Christian a perfect account of righteousness for his stand before God. We see further, that not only does Jesus Christ redeem us, but He regenerates us by the power of the Holy Spirit to become children of God, having the life of God grow in us, so that subjectively we may experience God’s righteousness lived out of us, more and more. Ultimately, our expectation is that our whole being, spirit, soul and body will be fully soaked, saturated, and permeated with God’s life. The scriptural word for this is glorification, whereby we express God’s life in our whole being.
In short, Ahmed Deedat’s claim that crucifixion for redemption is a grotesque idea is without warrant. His entire critique of the notion of the crucifixion of Jesus is based upon his own concepts. But God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways are higher than our ways. There is no way for man to be made right with God apart from the righteousness of God. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows us the harmony of God’s mercy and justice working together.

We move on. Deedat writes:

“The latest cult among the Christians. Billy Graham claims that there are 70 million such cultists in America. Immaculate people, veritable angels! Yet in that nation over a quarter million "gays" gathered in San Fransisco last June on a pilgrimage, led by 50 lesbians on motorbikes. In New York, there are only one million more women than men and of the "men" it is said that one third are sodomites! Overall there are 10 million "problem drinkers" (meaning DRUNKARDS), in the U.S.A. If all this is true with 70 million veritable angels ("Born-Again") in their midst, then it gives a lie to Paul's : "…a little leaven leaveneth the whole ..." — (1 Cor. 5:6). Here in the Christian West not even one third can ferment the loaf. Strange!”

We ran into this sort of discussion at the beginning of our series. Again, Deedat is grasping for more reasons to doubt the bible because of the actions of people proclaiming to be Christian. The bible is not judged in light of the actions of sinners. God’s word is transcends human behaviour. Since the Qur’an attests to the fact that all of mankind deserves the wrath of God, including Muslims, there is no need to interact with Deedat’s rhetoric here.

Deedat now turns his attack upon the disciples who slept in Gethsemane, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. He writes:

“St. Luke, though he was never one of the elected Twelve disciples of Christ, holds numerous distinctions according to Christians. Among them, the "most historical", the beloved "physician", etc. As a Physician, his theory of men "SLEEPING FOR SORROW" is unique. Cries and waitings, sobs and sorrows were in abundance from Jerusalem to Gethsemane on the lips of Jesus (pbuh) which would shock and alert to wakefulness any un-ebriated1 person. Why were the "lullabies" of woe, lulling the disciples to slumber? Was their psychological make-up any different from that of twentieth century man? Professors of physiology opine that under shock, stress and fear the adrenal gland secretes a hormone into the bloodstream — nature's own injection — which chases away all sleep. Is it not possible that the disciples of Jesus had eaten too much and drunk too much: remembering that food and drink was all "on the house," 2, i.e. FREE!”

Deedat has unknowingly dug himself into a hole. He is attacking the followers of Jesus. Note that Muslims believe that Jesus’ followers were Muslims. The disciples are indeed rebuked by Jesus for not staying awake with him during their time together in Gethsemane. Deedat makes a leap of logic to suggest that the reason for this is that the disciples had eaten too much and drunken too much. He even goes on to say that food and drink was all free. Let’s address these points one by one:

1. Jesus’ disciples did not have the concept that all their food was free - “For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.” – John 4:8
2. "When He rose from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow.” - Luke 22:45 - People often do cry themselves to sleep. Could it be that the disciples were sad that their master was about to get killed?
3. The eating and drinking that the disciples had before going up to Gethsemane was the last supper with Jesus Christ. Yes there was bread and wine there, but are we to believe that Jesus would have some kind of party? This was a most solemn occasion whereby He wanted His disciples to remember Him.
4. If the disciples were drunk, then would they have been able to cut off the ear from the servant of the high priest? (Luke 22:50). If Peter was drunk, would he have remembered the Lord’s word about denying him three times?
5. The text itself explicitly says that they slept because of sorrow. If they were falling asleep because they were drunk, the text would certainly have mentioned this instead. If a drunk driver falls asleep at the wheel, he might be a sad person, but the police report would not say that he slept because he was sad, it would say because he had too much alcohol.
6. Jesus prays for them not to fall into temptation prior to falling asleep. If the disciples had over-indulged in food and wine, then such a statement would be meaningless because they would have already fallen into temptation.

We notice that the suggestions from Deedat find no evidence in the scriptures. He has to conjure up peculiar circumstances to support his theories, and yet the Christian can simply read the text for what it says.

Not only does Deedat have to twist the bible, but he has to attribute these scenarios to miscalculations on Jesus’ part. We read:

“Jesus had doubly miscalculated:-
1. Regarding the enthusiasm demonstrated by the disciples in that upper-room. Believing that he would only have to contend with the Jews in a clandestine arrest.
2. The Jews were more wily then he had thought. They brought with them Roman soldiers.
The Christian scholars are no less wily in their translations and manipulations of the Bible. They have changed the words "Roman soldiers" to simply "soldiers" and from the word soldiers to now "band of men" and "the guard".
"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons" (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:3
1. "Band of men": here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning "cohort" and "tribune". "That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest our Lord . . ." See Knox's — "A New Testament Commentary", page 260.”
We deal with the two supposed miscalculations of Jesus according to Ahmed Deedat. He suggests that Jesus thought he would have little or no opposition from the Jews because of the enthusiasm of his disciples in the upper room. Is Deedat serious here? Are we honestly to believe that Jesus based the level of opposition from the Jews upon the reception he received from his closest followers? This claim is false on so many levels.

Firstly, we note that Jesus predicted that He would be mocked, persecuted, crucified, and killed before his time in the upper room with the disciples. (Luke 18:32-33, Matthew 16:21)

Secondly, we note that in the upper room itself he spoke of the same death He was about to face - Luke (22:19-22).

Thirdly, if Jesus was going to receive little opposition, then why would Deedat claim he was preparing for a Jihad, a Holy War, an impending showdown? I am using Deedat’s own words here.

Fourthly, why do we see no indication from Jesus that He would meet little opposition? Instead we see him going ahead with the anticipation of meeting his persecutors who would ultimately bring about his death.

Fifthly, why did Jesus show no surprise at his arrest? Everything unfolded as He had predicted.

Sixthly, if Jesus truly wanted to fight, why did he rebuke the disciple who struck the slave’s ear and say that if He really wanted to fight He could summon over twelve legions of angels?

Seventhly, if Jesus was surprised, why did He say that the situation that He faced with His arresters was in order to fulfil the scriptures? The whole concept of having a Jihad, a show-down to resist the oncoming seizure would mean that Jesus would try to deliberately go against what the Scripture had prophesied concerning Him. Let us read Matthew 26:54-57 –

"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way ?"
At that time Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber ? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. "But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets." Then all the disciples left Him and fled. Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

Deedat says Jesus wanted to resist this situation. Jesus said it must happen this way, that all of this has taken place to fulfil the scriptures. We see that Ahmed Deedat’s theorizing falls apart completely.

Deedat wants to argue about the use of words in John 18:12, referring to speira and chiliarchos. He thinks that band of men does not sound close enough to the original Greek. Well, Deedat did not know Greek, nor Hebrew, needless to say, when I see the words “band of men,” it carries the connotation for me as a group of soldiers or some other such thing. I have no problem if the translation says “bands of men” or “soldiers”, because Jesus said that this is what must happen to fulfil the scriptures and Deedat cannot escape this. The arrest with the soldiers, leading to his mockery, flogging, beating, crucifixion and death were all known by Jesus to be a fulfilment of scripture. None of this came as a surprise, and in the midst of it all, He submitted to the Father’s will to proceed through it.

I hope by now you are realising how much Ahmed Deedat has misrepresented the text of scripture. He has tried his uttermost to subdue the plain reading of the gospel accounts in order to support His position of the swoon theory. We shall continue on and see further why all the evidence points to the historical fact of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:07:00 +0000

In the last message I started addressing the account of Genesis with regards to Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, and the sacrifice, which is a pre-figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I mentioned that the Qur'an does not actually name the person who is sacrificed whereas this name is mentioned in the bible, and since this is in the book of Genesis, a book of the Torah, and Mohammed believed that it had been preserved (Surah 32.23), then the evidence compels us to accept that it was indeed Isaac who was chosen to be a sacrifice, not Ishmael.

I also presented evidence showing that the Qur'an confirms that a covenant was given to Israel (surah 2:92-93) who descends from Isaac, not Ishmael, and that the Quran shows that the line of prophethood is through Isaac, which would disqualify Mohammed as a prophet from God.

We now turn our attention to the sacrifice itself in Genesis 22.
First we note : The Abraham was willing to give his only son whom he loved. This is a type of the Father freely giving His Son whom He loves for our redemption.

Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

There were witnesses who saw from a distance:

4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.

5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Notice also the reference to the third day. As you have the third day upon which Christ resurrected - in this case - Isaac lived after the sacrifice.

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,

The wood signifies the cross, the fire signifies judgement, and the knife signifies the piercing.

7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Here Isaac knows that the requirement of a burnt offering is a lamb. Thus in this accout, we actually need both aspects to complete the picture. On the one hand, showing Isaac as the Son given by his Father signifying Christ the Son given by God (John 3:16), on the other hand, the lamb signifying Christ as the lamb of God (john 1:29,1:26,Rev 5:6,Rev 7:17, Rev 14:10,Rev 15:3,Rev19:9,Rev 21:23,Rev 22:1,Rev 22:3).

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
At this point, the muslim might suggest that this picture shows that Jesus escaped death and therefore Deedat was correct with the swoon theory. But the account does not finish here. Keep in mind, there are two aspects of Christ being portrayed, one as the Son of God, and the other as the lamb of God.

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

The ram is caught by it’s horns in the thicket (thorny bush) just like the crown of thorns placed upon the head of Christ.

14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided."
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time

16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,

17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,

18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
Notice in verse 16 that God considers the sacrifice as to have taken place, through Abraham’s faith as he had not withheld his only son, which was an act of obedience (verse 18).

Now the muslim may interject at this point and say that the substitution theory must be correct since the ram died in the place of Isaac. The problem with this is that the lamb that was to be offered up as a burnt offering was to be unblemished (Exodus 12:5), so whoever ended up being sacrificed upon the cross of Calvary must have been sinless. This would not make sense in the Islamic substitution theory however, because they argue that Allah would never allow such harm to come to one of his prophets, and only the prophets are considered as sinless. Are we to suppose that Allah saved one prophet from going to the cross by sending another one in his place? Such a statement would be illogical and self-refuting.

Therefore, both the substitution theory and the swoon theory fail at this point. Only the New Testament fulfilment fits perfectly with Christ as the unblemished lamb of God (1 Peter 1:19)

We turn now to the next portion of Deedat’s argument. He writes:

“If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining! 1 Contrast these responses with those of Lord Nelson, a war-hero, who gave up the ghost with these undying words:
"THANK GOD, I HAVE DONE MY DUTY!". There are millions today, who would happily immolate themselves for king and country, with smiles on their faces, with shouts of "Amandhia!" or "Allahu-akbar!" or "God save the Queen!" Jesus was an un-willing victim. If this was God's scheme of salvation, then it was a heartless plot. It was murder in the first degree, and not redeeming self-sacrifice. “

Notice the words that Deedat uses: “Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining!” -
(1) Arming: Jesus did not intend to use a mere two swords for battle.
(2) Waling: I read that Jesus was grieved in His spirit and praying, not wailing.
(3) Sweating: These were sweat drops of blood. This kind of phenomenon is described in medicine as hematohidrosis.
(4) Crying: See point 2 above.
(5) Complaining: Was Mohammed complaining on his death bed? Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660 reads:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:
On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.
It seems that Mohammed is allowed to curse the Christians and the Jews for building places of worship but Jesus is not allowed to murmur anything but joyful words on the way to his death. Amazing double standards we see here from Deedat.

When Jesus is at the cross, what kinds of words do we see from Him?

(1) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." – This was to one the thief on the cross. This particular person had mocked him earlier (Matthew 27:44), but later repented (Luke 23:39-40). Did Jesus complain here, and tell rebuke the thief for mocking him earlier? No, instead He gave a great promise of Paradise.

(2) Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots (Luke 23:34). Did Jesus complain here? No, He prayed for those who were persecuting Him.

(3) Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. (Luke 23:28). Did Jesus want pity from others? Did He want others to weep for Him? No. He told them not to weep for Him but to weep for themselves and their children. This surely does not sound like a complaining Jesus to me.

(4) Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46). Jesus here does not voice angry words to the Father, rather He trusts everything into His hands.

(5) And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). Now muslims will claim that Jesus is complaining here, that he is crying in defeat. What Jesus was doing was quoting from Psalm 22:1. Let us read this Psalm in its entirety as we see that this is not a cry of defeat but a fulfilment of scripture showing the crucified Christ who triumphs victoriously. Compare the blue section with the red:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O Lord, be not far off; O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the Lord will praise him-- may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him-- those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn-- for he has done it.
We can see here, that Christ’s crucifixion is portrayed with rich and vivid language. He describes Himself as a worm, an object of mockery by His people (verses 6 - 7), His intimate relationship with the Father from birth (verses 9 – 10), the piercing of His hands and feet (verse 16), the casting of lots over His garments (verse 18).

Verses 22 – 31 Show the triumph of the suffering servant. In fact, the cries of verse one are met with the Father’s presence (verse 24), He fulfils the righteous requirement (verse 25), the gospel goes out to all nations (verse 27), His sacrifice will have perpetual remembrance and worth (verse 30). Verse 31 shows that these verses are not merely applying to someone living in the Old Testament times, but in the future.

Thus, we have a beautiful picture of the death and resurrection of Christ which brings about a great triumphant victory!

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 5)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:34:00 +0000

We have been examining the Islamic position against the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ and have found that it cannot survive when taking the
testimony of the gospels in their context, without adulterating the
word by introducing foreign thoughts into the text.

In part 4, we saw that contrary to Deedat's claim that Jesus was
unwilling to go to the cross, and was even prepared to set up a Jihad
(Holy War) to prevent it, the bible testifies of the absoluteness of
Jesus' heart to do the will of the Father and indeed lay His life
freely.

Now we press on with part 5. Please note, this particular post will
be quite long because I am going to speak at length concerning
Abraham and His sacrificing of Isaac. We shall see why shortly. As I
continued through Deedat's work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction", I
noticed an abrupt detour once again from Deedat, where he says:

"This harrowing sob-story, the blood-curdling cries and lamentations
would evoke sympathy in the hardest of hearts. And the hot-gospeller
and the Bible-thumper is not averse to its effective exploitation. We
are told that Jesus was destined to die for the sins of mankind. That
he was "being prepared for this vicarious sacrifice before the
foundation of the world". That even before the material universe came
into being, there was a contract between "Father and son," and that in
the year 4000 A.A. (After Adam) 1, God himself in the form of Jesus,
as the second person from the enigmatic Trinity2, was to get himself
hanged to redeem mankind from the Original Sin and their actual sins.

1. According to Christian calculations the world and everything in it
is 6000 years old.
2. "Trinity": The closest approximation to the Christian dogma of the
trinity as found in the Bible ? "For there are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one" - (1st Epistle of John 5:7) ? has now been unceremoniously
thrown out as fabrication in the R.S.V., the most up-to-date
translation of the Bible. See ? "Is the Bible God's Word?" for
further Biblical interpolations."

Instead of keeping to the topic at hand, Deedat has switched gears
completely. What he is doing here is throwing more non sequiters. We
are supposed to be dealing with the matter of crucifixion and now
Deedat starts talking about the Trinity (Mark 12:29,Matthew
28:19,John 17:3,John 5:23,Acts 5:3-4,Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:8,
Revelations 1:8, Revelations 21:6-7, Revelations 22:13-16...). He
mentions that 1 John 5:7 was not in the
earliest manuscripts. I agree, as do all biblical scholars. The only
people who may have difficulty with this are the King James onlyists
who revere the Byzantine manuscripts above the Alexandrian
manuscripts, but even so, 1 John 5:7 does not in anyway alter the
clear doctrine of the Trinity that is consistently presented in the
bible. Furthermore, 1 John 5:7, believed to have been derived from
explanatory marginal notes for 1 John 5:8 which does appear in the
earliest manuscripts, is a plausible interpretation of 1 John 5:7.

It was unfortunate that some mistakingly copied the notes into the
subsequent translations without making the distinction between the
text of scripture and the notes of man, but we have sound textual
critical methods that allow us to identify such things and be assured
of the original renderings and appearances of text in the Old and New
Testaments. This is something that is very lacking in Qur'anic
textual criticism, due to the burnings of Caliph Uthman of the
variant Qur'ans.

Deedat also talks about the age of the universe. Both of these
subjects are completely outside of the scope of our discussion and we
will therefore give no occasion to address them at this stage. Suffice
to say, his statements bear no weight against the Christian
position of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Deedat writes: "JESUS UNAWARE OF HEAVENLY CONTRACT

From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful
deployment of forces at Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to
the God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about
the contract for his crucifixion. It reminds one of the Biblical
Abraham, leading his son to the slaughter with the bluff that the
Lord will provide a 'scape-goat.'"

As has been clearly demostrated, there was no "masterful deploment of
forces". Furthermore, Jesus as a man, experienced the anguish of the
event soon to follow. In spite of this anguish, rather than simply
refuse to go ahead with the crucifixion, He prayed earnestly to be
aligned with the Father's will. This is indeed an exemplery model of
conduct for those who follow Christ. Interestingly, Deedat refers
tothe experience of Abraham and His son Isaac in the sacrifice. Let
us now turn our attention to this particular matter because Deedat
mentions the scapegoat.

From the outset, I would like to say this. Deedat might not have
realised it, but by mentioning the "scapegoat", Deedat is actually
refuting his own position of the swoon theory. If anything, he would
have to accept the substitutionist position rather than the swoon
theory, because at least in the substitution theory, someone else
takes the position of Jesus upon the cross, as the ram is slaughtered
and offered to God in place of Isaac. I am not sure whether Deedat
realised that he weakened his position by mentioning this in passing,
but let us turn anyway to the account of Abraham and Isaac as
mentioned in the bible:

GENESIS 22:1-2 says

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love,
and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Muslims will say that this accout is wrong and Ishmael is more likely
to have been offered because Isaac was born after Ishmael and God says
"Take your son, your ONLY son. Ishmael was the firstborn son, so it
must have taken place before Isaac was born.

I would like to point out three initial problems to this position:

1. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the name of the son to be sacrificed
actually mentioned.

2. Muslims are saying that it must be Ishamael because the word ONLY
appears, yet the name ISAAC also appears. It is illogical to claim
that the verse is corrupted because of the name Isaac and yet use the
verse as an authority for the Muslim position because the word only
appears. If the verse has been corrupted as Muslims would have us
believe, then they have no idea whether the verse contains the word
only or not. Nor would they know which name appeared, based upon
point number 1.

3. The Quran actually speaks of the preservation of the Torah here:

/ 032.023 / : We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not
then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the
Children of Israel. (Yusuf Ali)

Addtionally, we learn from the bible that the reason that Isaac is
referred to as Abraham's only son is because Ishmael was born through
Hagar, who was not Abraham's wife. Hence Ishmael was an illigitimate
son. God promised Abraham a son who would inherit his blessing as we
read in GENESIS 15:

1 After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: "Do not
be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

2 But Abram said, "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I
remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of
Damascus?"

3 And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my
household will be my heir."

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your
heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."

5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the
stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall
your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.

First we see here that Abraham thought that Eliezer of Damascus would
inherit his estate because he had no children. Then the Lord promised
him offspring that would be numerous like the stars in the heavens.

Then we see that Sarah and Abraham decided to try to fulfill God's
prayer themselves. Since Sarah was still barren, she told Abraham to
go into Hagar the maidservant as we read in GENESIS 16:

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an
Egyptian maidservant named Hagar;

2 so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children.
Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through
her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife
took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be
his wife. Sarah was upset because Hagar despised her because she was
pregnant while Sarah was still barren. God commanded Hagar to submit
to Sarah nevetheless:

7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it
was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from,
and where are you going?" "I'm running away from my mistress Sarai,"
she answered.

9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, "Go back to your mistress and
submit to her."

10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they
will be too numerous to count."

11 The angel of the Lord also said to her: "You are now with child
and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has
heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against
everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in
hostility toward all his brothers."

We see that Ishamel is described as being hostile and against his
brothers. Does this sound familiar? Abraham was 86 years old when
Ishmael was born according to verse 16:

16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

This was against God's promise, and as a result, Abraham had to wait
13 years before God would appear to him again:

GENESIS 17 says -

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and
said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.

2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly
increase your numbers."

Notice Abraham is now 99 years old and the Lord says he WILL confirm
his convenant. That means that God's covenant was not realised
through Ishmael. In fact, God makes it explicitly clear that the
covenant is through Isaac, not Ishmael:

/15/ God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no
longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

16 I WILL BLESS HER AND WILL SURELY GIVE YOU A SON BY HER. I will
bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples
will come from her."

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son
be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the
age of ninety?"

18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your
blessing!"

19 Then God said, "YES, BUT YOUR WIFE SARAH WILL BEAR YOU A SON, AND
YOU WILL CALL HIM ISAAC. I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM as an
everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I
will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will
be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great
nation.

/21/ BUT MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC, whom Sarah will
bear to you by this time next year."

22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

Verse 16 shows that Ishmael is not considered to be the son
promised by God, because God says that HE will provide a son through
SARAH and that SARAH would be the mother of nations. Notice, Sarah is
considered the mother of nations, not Hagar, so in this sense, Isaac
was Abraham's only son.

Verses 19 and 21 emphatically state that Isaac was the one of God's
choosing though whom He would establish His covenant.

At this point, it would also be of interest to mention that the line
of prophethood mentioned in the Quran actually includes Isaac's line,
not Ishmael. Surely, if Ishamel is the firstborn son, a true
legitimate son, and especially the one through whom Mohammed, the
"/greatest of all prophets/" had descended, then his name would be
mentioned, not Isaac's. Yet startlingly, we read:

019.049: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they
worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and
each one of them We made a prophet. (Yusuf Ali)

045.016 : We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book,
the Power of Command and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance,
things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. (Yusuf
Ali)

029.027 : And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among
his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward
in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the
Righteous. (Yusuf Ali)

Here we see that Isaac's name is mentioned instead of Ishmael in the
Abrahamic line. If Ishmael is truly to be considered greater than
Isaac, we would have expected to see his name there. Furthermore, we
find that Allah preferred Israel above all nations. Israel was the
name God gave to Jacob, the son of Isaac. If Ishmael was greater,
then we would not expect Israel to be preferred above all nations.
Not only that, but the prophethood is given through Isaac's lineage,
not Ishmael's. That in itself would disqualify Mohammed.

The muslim may object and say that Surah 6:83-86 do teach that
Ishmael was a prophet and that prophethood was through him as well.
Let us read:

And Ismail and Elisha and Jonah and Lut: and to all We gave favour
above the nations: (86)

(To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose
them. And We guided them to a straight way. (87)
This is the Guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He
pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with
Him, all that they did would be vain for them. (88)

These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and
prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, behold! We
shall entrust their charge to a new People who reject them not. (89)

Firstly, we note that that Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lut(Lot) are
said to receive Allah's favour above the nations. However, Israel is
uniquely named as being preferred above the nations, whereas Ismail
is equated as being on par with Jonah, Elisha, and Lut(Lot).

Secondly, verse 89 says that these men, including Ishmael received
the book, the authority, and prophethood. It is proposed by the
Muslim then that Ishmail was a prophet. The verse states 3 things -
the Book, the Authority, and the Prophethood. We are to ask ourselves
- which book? Is it the Torah? Is it the Injeel? Is it the Qur'an?
Because, if we are to say that this verse definitely qualifies
Ishmael to be a prophet, then we would have to say that each of the
qualities, the book, the authority, and the prophethood, are applied
to all of the names. Let us test this then:

If the Book is the Torah, then it wouldn't apply to Lot, because Lot
was before Moses, and Moses was the one who wrote the Torah. If it
refers to the Injeel, then none of the people would qualify because
they all came before the Injeel. The same applies to the Qur'an since
the Qur'an was given to Mohammed who came long after Ishmael.
Therefore, it must be said, that the only book that seems to make
sense in this surah would be the Torah, and yet that book was not
given to Lot. Therefore, we can only say that at best each of the
items mentioned , i.e. the book, the authority, and the prophethood
can only be bestowed IN PART to each of the names given. Thus, Lot
was not given the book, but perhaps he was given authority and
prophethood. But we do not know which. The verse will not say. One
cannot assume that both were given to lot based upon this verse since
he did not receive "the book". Similarly with Ishmael, he might have
been given the Torah, he might have been given the authority, and the
prophethood, BUT we do not know. The verse does not equip the muslim
to determine this. As such the verse cannot be used as a proof-text
that Ishmael was a prophet, since it fails on Lot's account for
having received the book. Perhaps some of the names received all
three, but the verse does not give such information as to which
people received which items. If the muslim wishes to argue that the
verse means that each of the persons received all three, i.e. the
book, the authority, and the prophethood, then they would have to
reject this verse and indeed the Quran as the inspired word of God
since Lot did not receive the Torah.

Since the Qur'an does not give the name of which son was to be
sacrificed, the bible does, and the Qur'an does state that the Torah
was preserved (Surah 32:33), and Genesis is a part of the Torah, and
we have manuscripts that date before, during, and after the time of
Mohammed, we can trust the mountain of evidence that indeed Isaac was
the chosen son to be sacrificed and not Ishmael.

I note that Deedat only made the casual remark about Abraham and
Isaac but I had to respond to it to impress you with the fact that we
can be assured of the testimony given in Genesis, which is a great
type of Christ upon the cross.

I would like to continue further into the discussion of Abraham and
Isaac in my next post. Since we have seen very little if any
substance from the claims made by Ahmed Deedat, I think it would be
profitable at this stage to delve further into the biblical account
and see how beautifully the Genesis account portrays Christ in this
most wonderful aspect. This account is one of the clearest pictures
concerning the crucifixion and as this series of posts is indeed on
Islam and the cross, we would do well to engage in this portion of
scripture.

Before I end this post, I would leave you with the following
questions that the Muslim must answer:

1. Why is the Qur'an silent when it comes to the name of the person
to be sacrificed if the Quran is supposed to be a light of guidance
to supposedly correct the heresies followed by Jews and Christians?

2. Why did Allah prefer Israel above all the nations?

3. Why did Allah give the covenant to Israel and not to Ishmael?
(surah 2:92-93) Note: the sin of Israel was forgiven by Allah (surah
2:53-54). Whether or not Israel became disobedient later, the
covenant was nevetheless given to them, Israel being descendants of
Isaac, not Ishamel.

4. If the swoon theory is correct, and Christ did not die upon the
cross but was only hurt, then who was the ram that was slaughtered
and offered up?

That'll do for now saints. Sorry about the length of the post. I hope
this has not been boring but rather engaging.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 4)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:42:00 +0000

We continue examining the Swoon Theory proposed by Ahmed Deedat in his
work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction". In the previous post, we saw that
Mr. Deedat claimed that Jesus was preparing a Jihad to escape from the
cross. As we noted:

Jesus told the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. When the
Disciples said they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough. Enough
for what ? Enough to fulfill scripture that he would be counted among
the transgressors. Certainly 11 disciples and 2 swords does not sound
like a Jihad. What's more, Deedat says that Jesus' plan failed and
thus he told His disciples to put down the swords, and yet we saw that
if Jesus truly wanted to mount a Jihad, He had legions of angels at
His disposal, He could have summoned the thousands of other followers
that He had, and He would not have stopped at a meager 2 swords. The
Jihad argument fails on every level.

So now we move on to discuss Jesus' prayer to the Father in
Gethsemane. It is interesting that Deedat tries to use this very
chapter of Matthew when in it Christ teaches:

1. That He would be crucified (Matthew 26:2)
2. That His blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28)
3. That He would be buried (Matthew 26:12)
4. That He would rise again (Matthew 26:32)
5. That His death and resurrection fulfills Scripture (Matthew 26:31-32)
6. The He is the Son of God, and Judge of the World (Matthew 26:63-64)
7. That the gospel was to be preached to the whole world (Matthew 26:13)

Those are seven points that totally devastate the entire case for
Islam. Ahmed Deedat may have thought he was smart by trying to twist
verses from the bible to prove his case, yet the very scripture he
attempts to utilize, completely refutes His position.

Deedat writes:

". . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he
unto them, ?my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . ."
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the
Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but
as thou wilt." (This is the quality of a good Muslim who submits his
will to the will of God). (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26: 37-39

We briefly make note of Deedat's mention of the way Jesus prostrated
Himself "exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat". Prayer is not
restricted to the posture of prostration, but it is one of many ways
one can pray. To prove this, the reader may see Psalms 123:1, John
11:41-42, John 17:1, Mark 6:41, and Mark 11:25.

Deedat says that Jesus' prayer is the mark of a good muslim who
submits His will to the will of God. Apart from calling Jesus a
muslim, we find nothing that we need to argue with here, for we too
believe that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father (John 4:34).
The reason why Deedat brings this up is to show that Jesus didn't want
to go to the cross, hence the reason to try to escape it, e.g. through
praying this prayer.

And yet, the very verses cited by Jesus show something emphatically
clear : That He did not want to do ANYTHING outside of the Father's
will. Contrast this with Peter's statement that Jesus should by no
means go to the cross, Peter had no consideration for what the
Father's will was. Jesus continually sought the Father's will. Mr.
Deedat is expecting Jesus to joyfully welcome the cross of His own
will, joyfully welcome the flogging, the scourging, the mocking, the
humiliating death upon the cross.

The fact that Jesus did not of His own will welcome such things, shows
that He had a human nature and experienced suffering and anguish as we
do. And yet, the beauty of this is that in spite of His genuine will,
He submitted to the will of the Father. We note therefore that the
focal point of Christ's living, was not the cross, but the will of the
Father. When He saw that the cross was of the Father's will, He was
fully set on carrying it out as John 18:11 says "So Jesus said to
Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has
given Me, shall I not drink it?"

We see very clearly, as has been the consistent testimony of Jesus,
that His intent focus was upon doing the very will of the Father, and
that focus never shifted, before His prayer in Gethsemane, during His
prayer in Gethsemane, or after His prayer in Gethsemane. Again, we see
the contrast between Peter and Jesus, where Peter is intent on
rescuing Jesus, because of his own will, but Jesus is intent on
drinking the cup of wrath because it is the Father's will.

Now Deedat takes a detour, let's try to follow him:

"MESSIAH SOBS FOR HIS PEOPLE
Why all this bewailing and lamentation? Is he crying to save his skin?
It would be highly cynical on his part to do that! Did he not advise
others:
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew
5:29-30
We would be doing Jesus a grave injustice if we thought that he was
crying like a woman to save his body from physical harm. He was crying
for his people ? the Jews. They held a queer logic, that if they
succeeded in killing any would-be Messiah (Christ), it would be a sure
proof of his imposture. For God Almighty will never allow His truly
"anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed ? (Deuteronomy 18:20). Hence
the insistence of the Jews as a people, as a whole, in rejecting
Jesus, the son of Mary, as their promised Messiah ? "The eternal
rejection." "

Deedat is trying to assert that Christ's sorrow in Matthew chapter 26
is for the same reason as His sorrow in Matthew chapter 5. Instead of
actually dealing with the context of Matthew chapter 26, he has to
skip back 19 chapters to support his position! This is what Mr. Deedat
has to do, because he CANNOT allow scripture to speak for itself.
Verses 37 and 38 of Matthew 26, talking about Jesus being sorrowful
are explained by verse 39, wherein Jesus asks the Father for the cup
to pass from Him, i.e. the suffering of crucifixion. It is not because
He is weeping for Jerusalem. It would make absolutely no sense if we
were to interpret the cup now to mean the rejection of Jerusalem. Mr.
Deedat thinks that being grieved because of facing certain death is
"crying like a woman" as he puts it, and yet a more reasonable
interpretation is that Jesus is crying sweat drops of blood because
people in Jerusalem are rejecting Him as a Messiah. This is the
complete stretching and twisting of scripture upon Mr. Deedat's part.
The simple plain reading of the text shows that Jesus was experiencing
anguish in the face of certain death. We do not see Jesus in sweat
drops of blood in Matthew Chapter 5 as we do in chapter 26. Context is
king.

Now we notice that the verses plucked from Matthew 5:29-30 are again
of a completely different context. We read the verses again:

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew 5:29-30.
These verses are talking about the Kingdom law, which expounds and
raises the bar upon the law of the Old Testament. In particular, the
reference to the eye being plucked off or the hand being cut off, it
is referring to the matter of adultery, which Jesus says can be done
simply by looking lustfully upon another woman. Of course, we are not
literally to do these things but it is a principle whereby we ought to
be very strict by not giving any occasion for the flesh to indulge its
desires. What we have here is yet another example of Ahmed Deedat
using a scattergun approach by taking a bunch of completely unrelated
verses and stringing them together in the hope that the bewildered
Christian will have no response. Fortunately, by simply reading verses
in their context we know what their application is.

In the same comments, He brought up Deuteronomy 18:20 which reads:
"20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other
gods, must be put to death." Deedat says "For God Almighty will never
allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed". Deedat is
attempting to make the verse say more than it does. The verse never
says that God will not allow a true Messiah to be killed. It is merely
saying that a false prophet ought to be put to death according to law.
If Deedat really wants to believe that God wouldn't allow true
prophets to be killed, then he would have to reject Mohammed as being
a false prophet, because he was poisoned by a Jew as we read in Bukhari:

"Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to
the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all
the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were
collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a
question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet
asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You
have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are
right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about
something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell
a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father."
On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said,
"We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that
you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and
humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it." Then he
asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They
said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?"
They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We
wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of
you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would NOT HARM YOU."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394)

And again, specifically leading to his death:

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which
Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except
what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in
which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by
the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is
being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 713)

In the course of presenting his case against the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ, Ahmed Deedat has demonstrated that he must use red herrings,
out of context quotations, read thoughts into the text completely
foreign to the derived meaning of the text, and apply standards to
Jesus that would disqualify his own beloved prophet Mohammed.

I shall continue Lord willing and demonstrate further why the swoon
theory is completely false and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a
true and historical event.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 3)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:44:00 +0000

As we continue working our way through the swoon theory presented by
Ahmed Deedat, we summarize the points thus far:

1. Deedat claims that Muslims are the most hygenic, generous, and
ethical people. As I pointed out, this is questionable at best and has
nothing to do with the topic.

2. Deedat claims that there were no witnesses to the crucifixion
because everyone forsook Jesus and fled. And yet the bible shows that
people returned later, including Peter, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
John the disciple.

3. Deedat claims that Jesus was preparing for Jihad because he didn't
want to die, citing the reference to the swords that Jesus ordered His
disciples to purchase. Yet Jesus explained that it was merely to
fulfill scripture, not for fighting.

We continue this third point further. Deedat writes:

"He had with him Peter (the Rock) and John and James (the sons of
Thunder) together with the other eight, each vying with one another to
go to prison for him; to die for him. 1 These were all Galilians. They
had a reputation of Zealotism, terrorism and repeated insurrections
against the Romans.

Armed with sticks and stones, and the swords, and fortified with the
spirit of self-sacrifice which they had avowed for their Master, he
was sure to knock hells into any Jewish rabble that dare confront him."

Notice how Deedat attempts to amplify the situation by referring to
Peter's name as Rock. Matthew 16:16-18 clearly teaches that the
purpose of this name was to signify that Peter (which actually means
stone - (Petros in the Greek)) is a building material for the church.
He repeats this sentiment in his own epistle 1 Peter 2:5 where he says
"you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house
to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ." So not only is Peter a stone, but so also
are we, the believers in Christ, and this is for God's building, not
fighting in a Jihad as Deedat would have us believe.

Regarding John and James as the sons of Thunder, again Deedat mentions
this in order to create some shock value, and yet if we look at Jesus'
attitude towards these brothers, we realize that he had no intention
whatsoever to use them for violent purposes. We read in Luke chapter
9:51-56 -

"51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus
resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead,
who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but
the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for
Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked,
"Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56 and they went to another
village."

Here we see the attitude of James and John which was aggressive toward
those who did not welcome them, and what does Jesus do ? Does he
commend them for wanting to call fire from heaven ? Was Jesus'
attitude to start a Jihad with them? No. He rebuked them and they went
on to another village.

It is amazing how Deedat can take a verse out of context to make it
have the appearance of Islamic doctrine, albeit the doctrine of Jihad.
We are not amused.

We read on:

"He had proved himself a skilful strategist and planner, alert and
resourceful. This was not the time to sit and twiddle thumbs; to be a
sitting-duck, cooped up with his disciples in the upper-room! No, not
for him. He leads his platoon, in the middle of the night, to
Gethsemane-Gethsemane ? an olive press ? a courtyard built of stone
walls some 5 miles out of town."

So the people whom Jesus is leading is a platoon now according to
Deedat. Keep in mind again that James and John were rebuked by Jesus
for having an aggressive spirit, and Peter is the one who was rebuked
for telling the Lord "This shall by no means happen to you" i.e. His
crucifixion. In fact so strong was Jesus' rebuke toward Peter that He
called Him Satan, showing that it was totally of Satan that Jesus
would not go to be crucified but rather to be rescued out of that
situation. What does that say about Surah 4:157? What does that say
about Mohammed? And yet now, according to Deedat we are to believe
that Jesus is using these very people to escape crucifixion by way of
Jihad. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Deedat continues:

"On the way, he unburdens to them the seriousness of the situation.
The implications and the explosive nature of the coup that failed. Now
he must bear the wrath of the powers that be. The price of failure!

You do not have to be a military genius to appreciate that, Jesus
(pbuh) deploys his forces as a master tactician, in a manner that
would bring credit to any Officer out of "Sandhurst"1. He places eight
of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding
them:

"... Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."
"

So now, for for some apparent reason, Jesus decides not to go ahead
with his Jihad after all. Is it because perhaps He only just figured
out that He only has 11 people and 2 swords with Him? Deedat knows
that the Jihad position fails and tries to use this as an exit
strategy to somehow save face. If Jesus had truly wanted to begin a
Jihad, He could have sent legions of angels at a simple command:

Matthew 26:53
"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at
my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Were Ahmed Deedat still alive I would have told him, "Sir, with all
due respect, if you were to talk to Jesus about starting a Jihad with
sword, sticks and stones as you claim, He would say this very word to
you."

I believe that the same kind of aggressiveness that we see in James
and John, who asked the Lord to call fire down from heaven upon those
who did not welcome them, is the same spirit of aggressiveness we see
in the suggestions of violence that Deedat purported.

I will continue in the next post addressing the point of Jesus praying
to the in Gethsemane to His Father, asking Him to remove the cup from
Him.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:55:00 +0000

Let us continue examining the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ in light of the theories perpetuated by Muslim according to
Surah 4:157 which reads:

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of
Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they
crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ
therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge
respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not
for sure."

Firstly, we shall turn to the swoon theory, as it was popularized by
Ahmed Deedat and see if it fits as a plausible alternative. There are
a lot of points to cover here so please bear with me as I attempt to
address them one by one. I want to cover this theory first because it
has gained increasing popularity among muslims, especially among those
such as Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Zakir Naik. These are big names
and have a large loyal following among Muslims.

I quote from Deedat's popular work, "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" :

"In a nutshell. No CrucifixionI ? No Christianity! This is the
experience of us Muslims, in this ocean of Christianity, which is
South Africa. A thousand sects and denominations of Christianity are
vying with one another to redeem the "heathen" (as they say) from
hell-fire. However, in this battle no Christian priest, parson or
predikant, or hot-gospeller, local or imported, will ever endeavour to
teach the Muslim something about hygiene; for we Muslims can claim to be the most hygienic people (I am talking about personal hygiene). Nor do they endeavour to teach us about hospitality; for we are the most hospitable of people. Nor about
ethics or morality; for we are the most moral people (as a whole) i.e.
we don't drink, we don't gamble, we don?t date, court or dance; we
pray 5 times a day, we fast for one whole month during the Muslim Holy
month of Ramadaan; and we take pleasure in being a charitable people.
Despite any of our shortcomings, we venture to suggest that there is
not another group of people that can "show a candle" to us in
brotherhood, in piety or in sobriety. "

From the outset, Deedat attempts to throw a red herring by bringing
up Hygene. What relevance does this have to the topic at hand ? We are
not told. But we can be sure that he is mentioning this in order to
somehow discredit the Christian position by attacking his character,
implicitly as being dirty. Add to this the other moral issues he
brings up such as fasting, charity, alcohol, etc.

One could be tempted to address each of these points in great detail
one by one, such as the claim from Mohammed that water is clean, even
if the dead corpse of a donkey or menstrual clothes are found there
(Sunan Abu Dawud) would cast great doubt on the notion that Muslims
are the most hygenic, but let us leave that for another discussion.
Back to Deedat's claims on the crucifixion:

"I dare humbly claim that such unattested documents would be thrown
out of hand, in any Court-of-Law, in any civilised country, in just
two minutes. Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark,
tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus ?
"All his disciples forsook him and fled"- (Mark 14:50). Please ask your Christian friend, "Does "all" mean all in your language, you Englishman?" (This applies
to the North American as well) And he will no doubt say ? "Yes!";
"Does "almal" mean almal in your language, you Afrikaner?" And no
doubt he will say ? "ja!" (pronounced Yaa); "And does "bonke" mean
bonke in your language, you Zulu?" And he will say ? "Ahe!" This is
true of every language. Why not memorise this verse from the Bible in
your own dialect? Even in some additional languages?"

The point Deedat is trying to make is that Jesus' disciples ran away
from Jesus and therefore there were no eye-witnesses.

Yet this same book shows that there WERE witnesses:

- Simon from Cyrene (Mark 15:21)
- The crowd (Mark 15:29)
- Chief Priests and Elders (Mark 15:30)
- Women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and
Salome (Mark 15:40)

Most importantly, PETER actually returned:

"Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the
high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the
fire." - Mark 14:54

These verses are all from the Gospel of Mark, the very same book that
Deedat quotes from to try to prove that there were no eye-witnesses.
He cannot pick and choose which verses he will allow.

Let us read from John 19:24-27 - "24 So this is what the soldiers did.
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing
nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son,"
27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this
disciple took her into his home."

Here we see that Mary, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary
Magdalene were there. Also the disciple whom Jesus loved, which is a
reference to John. Were there witnesses to the crucifixion ? Deedat
says no. The Bible says yes.

From the outset, the Muslim position is very much in question. You
have multiple witnesses and multiple attestation to the fact that
there were many witnesses to the crucifixion. On this basis alone,
Mohammed's testimony is thrown out, as he appears some 600 years later
with historical basis for Surah 4:157. However, we have barely begun
to touch upon the swoon theory itself, so let us press on and attempt
to interact with more meaningful arguments.

After wading past numerous out of context quotations and
misappropriations of the gospel accounts, I finally came to a point of
significance. That is, that Jesus Christ was not willing to die. We
read:

"Jesus will not be a sitting-duck for a clandestine arrest by the
Jews. He prepares his disciples for the impending showdown.

Discreetly, so as not to frighten his disciples, he introduces the
subject of defence. Gently he begins:

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now,
he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he
that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!" - Luke
22:35-36

Here Deedat attempts to prove that Jesus is trying to avoid being
captured and killed by telling his disciples to buy swords. Does this
verse prove that Jesus was unwilling to be crucified? If we read the
very next verse (38), we shall see Jesus Himself explain the purpose
of the swords: (22:37) "For I tell you that this which is written must
be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for
that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." Was the purpose so that
Jesus would attack the authorities? No. Was it even to defend himself?
No. The purpose was simply to fulfill the scripture which said that He
would be numbered with transgressors. In fact, if Jesus' reason was to
attack or even to defend against his opposers, then the verse after
that would not make sense. It reads:

22:38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to
them, "It is enough." Would two swords enough to defend against Jesus'
opposers ? Surely not! Nor would it be enough to even begin to launch
a meaningful attack. Were Jesus so concerned about His safety, he
would have told them, "Get more. Get as many as you can." The Muslim
interpretation, while entertaining and controversial on a superficial
level, does no justice to the plain reading of the verses in context.

Deedat continues:

"This is a preparation for Jihaad, a Holy War ? Jews against Jews!
Why! Why this somersault? Did he not advise them to "turn the other
cheek"; "to forgive seventy times seven" (70 x 7 = 490)? Did he not
send his chosen Twelve with the advice:

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye,
therefore, as wise as serpents, (?) and as harmless as doves." -
Matthew 10:16"

Unfortunately for Deedat, he can't seem to get out of the Islamic mode
of Jihad. Notice how he now brings a verse from a different book, and
completely different context again. He tries to use this verse as if
it is a continuation of Luke 22:38.

Despite the lack of scholarly methodology in his use of scripture, we
shall address the use of this verse as well in its context.

Let us go to the beginning of this chapter (Matthew 10) and follow the
verses one by one leading up to verse 16 which Mr Deedat quoted, and
see if it is talking about Jihad:

1 - Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease
and every kind of sickness.

2 - Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon,
who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother;

3 - Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus ;

4 - Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

5 - These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in
the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

6 - but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 - "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

8 - "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out
demons. Freely you received, freely give.

9 - "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,

10 - or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a
staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.

11 - "And whatever * city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy
in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.

12 - "As you enter the house, give it your greeting.

13 - "If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if
it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.

14 - "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out
of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.

15 - "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

16 - "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be
shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

Does anything here sound like Jesus is preparing his disciples for
Jihad? Absolutely not. He is simply teaching them how to carry out
their service of PREACHING,HEALING, CLEANSING, CASTING OUT DEMONS, AND
BLESSING people.

Interestingly, we note from the very first verse of this chapter, that
this is the point at which the disciples were appointed, the parallel
chapter in Luke is also chapter 10, which is 12 chapters before the
verses about the swords. If Jesus was really preparing for a Jihad,
and only manages to come up with 2
swords after 12 chapters, then he's not doing a very good job. Perhaps
if Mr. Deedat showed respect for the text of scripture, he would
concede that such a notion is absurd. The purpose of the swords was
for the fulfillment of scripture as being counted among the
transgressors. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The fact that Jesus warned his disciples that they would be sent as
sheep among wolves, does not mean that they would be preparing for a
Jihad, as Mr. Deedat suggests, but that they would simply meet
opposition in their preaching and service. In fact, verse 16, the very
verse that Mr. Deedat quotes from tells them to be innocent as doves.
Some translations render it as "gentle" as doves.

Let us see what the verses following verse 16 say:

17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local
councils and flog you in their synagogues.

18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as
witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to
say it. At that time you will be given what to say,

20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you.

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the
end will be saved.

These verses certainly seem to speak of violence, especially verse 17
and 21, however, are the disciples commanded to fight in these verses?
The closest possible thing to such a command are the first few words
in verse 17 "Be on your guard against men" That's it. That's all there
is. And yet they are not told to fight, just simply to be on guard. We
note further that they are told that they will be arrested and
flogged. Jesus doesn't tell them to fight back, but rather that this
is what is going to happen. It is a certainty. Yet in the midst of
this He comforts them saying in verse 19 and 20 not to worry for they
will be given the right words by the Spirit of the Father.

Now the Muslim may interject and say, but look at verse 21 - it says
that Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child.
Yes. And children will rebel against their parents and have them put
to death. Yes. But it says nothing about the followers of Jesus doing
the killing. Obviously it will be those who oppose Jesus and His
followers who will carry this out, those same ones mentioned in verse
17. Thus, it is abundantly clear that there is no Jihad being spoken
of here. We see no battle plan from Jesus. We see no command to fight
from Jesus. On the contrary He comforts them concerning the Spirit of
the Father who will be with them in the midst of their suffering.

I will continue in the next post to examine the swoon theory further
and expose why it has no credibility whatsoever.

May the Lord have all the Glory.

God bless you all,
Oliver (aka Royal Son)

Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:20:00 +0000

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1
Corinthians 1:18

In the series of posts to follow, I will be responding to the book by Ahmed Deedat under the same name "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" You will find that the arguments presented by Deedat in his book are the same arguments found in the videos I posted of his lecture.

On my last days of Paltalk, I had an interesting conversation with a
muslim gentleman named Yahya. I said to him that the only reason he
believes that Jesus Christ was not crucified was because of Surah
4:157, and that had that verse not appeared in the Quran, he would
believe the crucifixion as we do, citing the same evidence we do to
those who disagree.

Let us first examine Surah 4:157 and how we can know it is not
divinely inspired. Then we can take a look at the Islamic explanations
of what took place on that day at Calvary.

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of
Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they
crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely
those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no
knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed
him not for sure." - 4:157 Shakir Translation.

Let us look first at the titles given by the Jews in this verse to Jesus:

(1) Messiah
(2) Son of Marium
(3) Messenger of Allah

The only plausible title that would appear in this verse is the 2nd -
i.e. Son of Marium.

However, let's take a look at the other two. Firstly, the Jews would
NEVER refer to Jesus as the Messiah, because they did not believe that
He was the Messiah. They would certainly not desire to kill a person
whom they genuinely thought was the promised Messiah.

But the problem becomes even greater when we examine the third title -
Messenger of Allah. First of all, Jesus was never ever referred to in
any historical writings as the Messenger of Allah. The name Allah does
not ever appear in them, including the Talmud. Again, like with the
first title, the Jews would never refer to someone they are killing as
a messenger or prophet of God. It would seem more likely that they
would call him a messenger of the devil or some other such thing.

Now we turn our attention to the words "killed" and "crucified". This
is where Muslim theology melts into a puddle of goo. There is a big
split here as to what this really means. Some believe that it means
that Jesus was not put to death, nor was He even put on the cross.
This is known as the Substitution theory, and was commonly the most
traditional view held by Muslims. One such proponent of this theory
today is Osama Abdallah (founder of www.answering-christianity.com)

Some belive, as Shabir Ally points out, that the word "killed" is
referring to the act of execution in a general way, whereas
"crucified" is referring to the act of execution in a specific way.
Thus, Jesus was in fact put on the cross, but did not die there. The
obvious objection from the former interpretors is that "being nailed
to the cross equals crucifixion, which would contradict the Qur'an".
This point was masterfully made in a debate between Ahmed Deedat and
John Gilchrist. Read more about that debate at this URL:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Deedat/deedat.html

The substitutionists also interpret "but it appeared to them so (like
Isa)" as meaning that there was another person made to look like
Jesus, who was put upon the cross. Some Muslims say that it was Judas
Iscariot. Others say Simon of Cyrene, and others have other theories
as to who it was.

The Swoon-theoriest group (Shabir Ally etc...) suggest that the text
in the Qur'an merely points out that it only appeared that Jesus had
been killed and crucified on the cross when in fact He had not.

A very quick rebuttal to that claim is that if they are to claim that
it only appeared that way, then they would have to suggest that it
appeared that Jesus was killed twice - first in a GENERAL way, and
then secondly in a more specific way, i.e. by way of crucifixion. As
none of the muslims would claim such a ridiculous notion, they would
by necessity have to retract the claim that crucified must mean
killing in a specific way and not allow the possibility of it simply
meaning to be nailed to the cross, since the word killed already
appears in the text.

Interestingly, the end of the verse only serves to add to the complete
confusion, when it says: "and most surely those who differ therein are
only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but
only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure."

This statement is a contradiction of the first part of the verse
wherein the Jews are said to state something they are sure of, and yet
the latter part of the verse says that it is they who differ about the
matter, following conjecture, with no certain knowledge.

The Jews were clear about this matter. The death of Jesus was never
ever disputed among them. They never differed about it. On the
contrary, it is the Muslims who dispute about what took place. It is
they that have no certain knowledge, following the saying of a man who
came some 600 years after the event.

This verse is probably one of the strongest evidences against the
Divine inspiration of the Quran. It fails logically, historically, and
theologically.

When time allows, I will examine each of these two popular theories
put forward by Muslims - both the Swoon theory (that Jesus passed out
on the cross), and the substitution theory (that someone else was
placed upon the cross). We shall see how utterly bankrupt the muslim
position rests in both theories and why we Christians can be assured
of the reliability of the accounts of the gospels. I would like to go
into some of the often discussed "contradictions" of the gospels and
then present both cases side by side. The results will be devastating
to one, and uplifting and edifying to the other.

May the Lord bless you all. He has purchased you from among men with
His precious redeeming blood. Now, may the God of all grace fill you
and supply you bountifully.

Crucifixion or Crucifiction

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:27:00 +0000

Here is a lecture given by Ahmed Deedat in South Africa titled "Crucifixion or Crucifiction". If these arguments were put before you, how would you respond? Deedat released a book under the same name, and it became a popular resource from which many a muslim drew their information. Even the noted Islamic Scholar Shabir Ally debated Christian Apologist Anis Shorrosh under the topic, you guessed it, "Crucifixion or Crucifiction".

I have been working on a series of messages which respond directly to his book. I will be posting these on the blog soon. If you wish to download the book in electronic format, you can do so here. Keep in mind, Ahmed Deedat was perhaps the most influential modern Islamic Apologist. Regarding the amount of work he put into this book, he writes:

"The foregoing is the result of my years and years of study and research."

Part 1/13

Part 2/13

Part 3/13

Part 4/13

Part 5/13

Part 6/13

Part 7/13

Part 8/13

Part 9/13

Part 10/13

Part 11/13

Part 12/13

Part 13/13

About this website

noreply@blogger.com (Royal Son) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:44:00 +0000

This website was created to respond to the works of Sheikh Ahmed Hussein Deedat (July 1, 1918–August 8, 2005).

Ahmed Deedat engaged in numerous debates with Christians and wrote many popular works, including "Combat Kit", "Crucifixtion or Crucifiction", and "Muhammed in the Bible".

It is the intention of this website to address the many claims Mr. Deedat has made against the Bible and Christianity. It is understood that addressing points of a theological nature can stimulate emotional reactions. However, I wish to make it very clear that I have no intention to humiliate Mr. Deedat, who has since passed away. Nor do I wish to ridicule Muslims for what they believe.

I hope that this website will be used as an opportunity for visitors to re-evaluate some of the past concepts concerning the Bible and Christianity, as well as the teachings of Islam.

God bless you all,
Royal Son.