Christian responses to my debate with Nabeel Qureshi on 12th July 2009
A reader kindly sent me a link to the Christian ‘Blogger: Answering Muslims’ site. It contains mostly hostile reviews of my arguments that evening but you can judge for yourself if they are being fair.
Hi,
Would you be willing to discuss some of the issues that came up during the debate here on your own blog? This may be a “less heated” environment for such dialogue. To be honest, I was wery close to posting a more polemical message to the Answering Muslims blog myself just after I had watched the debate videos. But I’m glad that I didn’t.
Hi
thanks for the invitation and yes I would be delighted to discuss the issues arising from my debate with Nabeel.
If you don’t mind I’ll let you set the agenda and I’ll respond to that. Hopefully it will prove a useful exercise for me.
My position is that whatever we post on my site will remain unedited and can be used on other sites if we so wish. Hope thats OK with you…
regards
Paul
OK, great.
I’ll start with few points and we’ll see how it develops.
- What was your main point in emphasizing the issue of the original meaning of the Son of Man in Daniel? Presumably you wanted to use it as a counterargument/refutation of Nabeel’s case, so I’d be interested to know what the force of that point would be in your mind.
- You made the comment that the doctrine of Incarnation is logically untenable, or something similar. Can you spell out the perceived problem with some detail? Also, what is the best Christian defense of the coherence of the Incarnation have you read (can be an entire book, a chapter of a book, or an article)?
- You mentioned that “God cannot die”. What is the concept of death that you are presupposing in this objection? Would it follow from that concept that if God can’t die, then a God-man can’t die?
Oh, and one more point that I forgot to add:
The phenomenon of sightings of deceased relatives and loved ones was known in the ancient world even much better than it is today — though obviously, the ancients were more likely to accept such experiences at face value. However, it seems quite clear that such appearance of a dead person signified just the opposite of the resurrection — not that the person just seen was alive again, but that he/she was dead. So even if we try to explain the multiple cases of seeing the risen Jesus as grief-induced hallucinations etc, it would do quite little to explain the origin of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. So if we have such sightings of Jesus (while remaining agnostic about their explanation at this point) on the one hand, and the belief by Jesus’ followers that he had risen from the dead on the other hand, what would be the additional factor that would most obviously explain the leap from the one to the other?
re the resurrection appearances. I’m not sure I understand your point. My argument is that corporeal appearances of a recently deceased person are well attested. My example of JB Philips having conversations with the recently dead CS Lewis is a particularly dramatic case of this. Lewis sat in his study in rude health – very much alive again!
Given these experiences are so common and presumably you and I do not actually accept that CS Lewis really came back from the dead in 1963, then we cannot rule out a similar phenomenon occurring 2000 years ago.
your three questions were:
1) What was your main point in emphasizing the issue of the original meaning of the Son of Man in Daniel? Presumably you wanted to use it as a counterargument/refutation of Nabeel’s case, so I’d be interested to know what the force of that point would be in your mind.
2) You made the comment that the doctrine of Incarnation is logically untenable, or something similar. Can you spell out the perceived problem with some detail? Also, what is the best Christian defense of the coherence of the Incarnation have you read (can be an entire book, a chapter of a book, or an article)?
3) You mentioned that “God cannot die”. What is the concept of death that you are presupposing in this objection? Would it follow from that concept that if God can’t die, then a God-man can’t die?
Some brief replies for now. We may want to go much deeper into the issues later on.
1) If our concern with Daniel (or any text) is to do responsible exegesis, then we must ask the following questions: what does the author actually say in the context of the whole text; what is the historical context of the writer; what were his horizons of understanding; what kind of literature is he writing: fiction, prophecy, poetry, history, myth etc.
In short, the evidence about Daniel 7 suggests that for Daniel ‘the son of man’ is simply a symbol for Israel in contrast to Israel’s savage enemies. There is no suggestion of this figure’s individual existence or pre-existence. And I see no good reasons for the hypothesis that Daniel or his readers (in pre-Christian Judaism) would have understood the human figure of his vision as a particular individual.
Obviously these assertions will need to be justified in depth. But that is the historical, exegetical evidence as I see it.
2) The incarnation is a huge subject in Christian theology and I can make only the briefest comments here. Firstly, there is no evidence, as I see it, that Jesus saw himself as an incarnate deity (quite the contrary). The notion, popular in conservative Christian circles, that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man is philosophically incoherent as well. A person cannot be simultaneously: immortal and mortal; omniscient and ignorant; fully divine yet estranged from the divine, all at the same time, within the same person. It is a logical absurdity.
As to what I have read by Christian theologians on the subject of the Incarnation over the years (!) where do I start? I have read extensively in the early fathers: Augustine, Irenaeus, the Cappadocian fathers. I have read Calvin and Luther; I have read distinguished modern defenders of the Incarnation such as Richard Swinburne, Gerald O’Collins, Alister Mcgrath. I recently read a volume of essays from the book ‘The Incarnation’ (OUP) comprising the research findings of 24 leading scholars all of whom defend the concept from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives. I could go on…
3) My assertion that God cannot die is taken from the NT, see 1 Timothy 1:17. The NT asserts that Jesus did in fact die, ergo he could not have been God.
Paul wrote:
“Given these experiences are so common and presumably you and I do not actually accept that CS Lewis really came back from the dead in 1963, then we cannot rule out a similar phenomenon occurring 2000 years ago.”
—–
It is my understanding that similar phenomena did indeed occur in the ancient world, but that in no other case that we know of is such appearance described with the terminology of resurrection. Even in the book of Acts, there is the account about how the Christians thought that Peter had been put to death and that “it is his angel” when the servant girl saw Peter at the door. Similarly, the Gospels contain the story of Moses and Elijah appearing at the mount of transfiguration, but this didn’t imply resurrection in the conceptual world in which the people of that time operated. Similar examples could be given from the extra-biblical literature.
So my point is essentially the same one that N. T. Wright makes in his The Resurrection of the Son of God. It is very unlikely that the disciples would have concluded that Jesus had been raised from the dead simply on the basis of an experience of him being present with them, even in a seemingly bodily form. But if we add the existence of an empty tomb to this picture, it becomes much more likely that they would have concluded that Jesus is physically risen from the dead. So the pieces of the puzzle fit much better if we accept the historicity of the empty tomb as well as the appearances. But for someone who holds to the Islamic substitution theory, this is exactly the one option that must be ruled out — unless one is willing to take on the problem of a deceptive God with even fuller force. (That is, unless one is willing to say that not only did God make someone else look like Jesus, but he also made the body of that someone else disappear from the tomb!)
Paul,
Thanks for your answers. Here’s my reply.
PAUL WROTE:
“If our concern with Daniel (or any text) is to do responsible exegesis, then we must ask the following questions: what does the author actually say in the context of the whole text; what is the historical context of the writer; what were his horizons of understanding; what kind of literature is he writing: fiction, prophecy, poetry, history, myth etc.”
In my opinion, Nabeel was right to demand that one should apply the same criteria to Christianity and Islam. Given what you say here, would you say that the not too uncommon attempts by Muslims to to find prophecies about Muhammed in the Quran are clearly fallacious?
The relevance of the rest of what you wrote on Daniel will depend on how you’ll answer this question, so I’ll refrain my comments on that part for now.
PAUL WROTE:
“The notion, popular in conservative Christian circles, that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man is philosophically incoherent as well. A person cannot be simultaneously: immortal and mortal; omniscient and ignorant; fully divine yet estranged from the divine, all at the same time, within the same person. It is a logical absurdity.”
I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall that you qualified your statement about the incoherence of the Incarnation with anything like “the popular conservative Christian notion of..”
But I do agree that being 100% God and 100% man is not the best way to describe the Incarnation. However, I do claim to be able to make sense of the idea that the second person of the Trinity who exists from all eternity in his divine nature, takes on a human nature in addition to his divine nature, so that He is fully divine (has a full divine nature) and fully human (has a full human nature).
PAUL WROTE:
“As to what I have read by Christian theologians on the subject of the Incarnation over the years (!) where do I start? I have read extensively in the early fathers: Augustine, Irenaeus, the Cappadocian fathers. I have read Calvin and Luther; I have read distinguished modern defenders of the Incarnation such as Richard Swinburne, Gerald O’Collins, Alister Mcgrath. I recently read a volume of essays from the book ‘The Incarnation’ (OUP) comprising the research findings of 24 leading scholars all of whom defend the concept from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives. I could go on…”
That’s pretty impressive. However, let me suggest two additions to your list (not sure if you’ve already read them but just didn’t mention).
Thomas V. Morris: The Logic of God Incarnate
William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (the chapter on the Incarnation)
PAUL WROTE:
“My assertion that God cannot die is taken from the NT, see 1 Timothy 1:17. The NT asserts that Jesus did in fact die, ergo he could not have been God.”
I do realize that I asked several questions and you did write a reasonable amount of text in reply, but I have to say that with regard to this one, you didn’t even touch my actual questions. You neither defined the concept of death, nor did you justify the inference that if God cannot die, then a God-man cannot die.
Thanks again for your reply. I look forward to reading any further comments that you may have.
Oops. I need to make this correction to my previous message.
When I wrote: “Given what you say here, would you say that the not too uncommon attempts by Muslims to to find prophecies about Muhammed in the Quran are clearly fallacious?”, I obviously meant THE BIBLE rather than the Quran.
if you got the time, i recommend reading review of nt wrongs book by R Price
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_ntwrong.htm
and also this link
There Were Guards At The Tomb Of Jesus
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=271016
The story of Moses and Elijah is not relevant in my view – it is more of an epiphany than a life after death story.
There are many stories in religious history of dead people appearing alive to followers. In the ancient world Philostratos’ account of the after-life of Apollonios of Tyana is of interest. Apparently Apollonios spoke in advance of his life after death and predicts that he will appear to his followers and even where to meet him.
NT scholar Raymond Brown has analysed the gospel accounts in great detail and concludes that there was one original resurrection appearance to the disciples which subsequently became increasingly embellished in the later gospel traditions, with Jesus assuming ever more corporeal form. I accept the historicity of the empty tomb of course.
………………….
You write:
‘In my opinion, Nabeel was right to demand that one should apply the same criteria to Christianity and Islam. Given what you say here, would you say that the not too uncommon attempts by Muslims to to find prophecies about Muhammed in the Quran are clearly fallacious? The relevance of the rest of what you wrote on Daniel will depend on how you’ll answer this question, so I’ll refrain my comments on that part for now.’
I do not accept that Islam has any relevance whatsoever to my discusion of the proper interpretation of Daniel. Lets keep on topic and not bring in diversions.
My point, which Nabeel did not address, remains this:
the evidence of Daniel 7 suggests that for Daniel ‘the son of man’ is simply a symbol for Israel in contrast to Israel’s enemies. There is no suggestion of this figure’s individual existence or pre-existence. And I see no good reasons for the hypothesis that Daniel or his readers (in pre-Christian Judaism) would have understood the human figure of his vision as a particular individual.
……………………..
I wrote: ‘The notion, popular in conservative Christian circles, that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man is philosophically incoherent as well. A person cannot be simultaneously: immortal and mortal; omniscient and ignorant; fully divine yet estranged from the divine, all at the same time, within the same person. It is a logical absurdity.’
you wrote: ‘I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall that you qualified your statement about the incoherence of the Incarnation with anything like “the popular conservative Christian notion of..’
That maybe true, but I’m saying it now.
you continue: ‘But I do agree that being 100% God and 100% man is not the best way to describe the Incarnation. However, I do claim to be able to make sense of the idea that the second person of the Trinity who exists from all eternity in his divine nature, takes on a human nature in addition to his divine nature, so that He is fully divine (has a full divine nature) and fully human (has a full human nature).’
your form of words is more elaborate than the 100% x 2 belief, but theologically it amounts to exactly the same thing and is still vunerable to the charge of philosophical incoherence. A person cannot be immortal and mortal; omniscient and ignorant; fully divine yet estranged from the divine, all at the same time, within the same person.
Lets get specific.
Jesus, on your view, knows all things, yet does not know the date of the End (or who touched him, according to one gospel story).
He cannot die (‘who ALONE is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever – 1 Tim 6:16), yet he dies.
He is God almighty, yet cries out TO God, ‘why have you abandoned me?’, thus confessing ignorance of his plight and separation from his God at the same time.
………………….
I am familiar with the arguments of Thomas Morris in his The Logic of God Incarnate.
…………………
you wrote
‘I do realize that I asked several questions and you did write a reasonable amount of text in reply, but I have to say that with regard to this one, you didn’t even touch my actual questions. You neither defined the concept of death, nor did you justify the inference that if God cannot die, then a God-man cannot die.’
you will need to elaboate what you are getting at here. As for a medical defintion of death I would refer you to a medical website for the details. For me the case is straightforward: God cannot die; it is clear to everone who has ever read the gospels that THEY clearly state that Jesus died. I conclude therefore that Jesus could not have been God.
Where is the fault in my logic?
At some point I would like to address the reality of developing Christology in the NT with particular reference to the Gospel of John…
Dear mansub23
thanks for the interesting links. The R Price review is especially good…
best wishes
Paul
PAUL WROTE:
“I accept the historicity of the empty tomb of course.”
My ignorance of Islamic thought may be showing here, but I was surprised by this. I do know that the majority position is what’s called “the substitution theory” (and I’m operating under the assumption you hold to it). So if you accept the empty tomb, are you saying that this is the empty tomb of the person who was made to appear like Jesus and was crucified instead of him?
PAUL WROTE:
“I do not accept that Islam has any relevance whatsoever to my discusion of the proper interpretation of Daniel. Lets keep on topic and not bring in diversions.”
This is NOT a diversion. If you have to resort to inconsistent standards, it is an indication that you are failing to justify your position. If people are allowed to apply inconsistent standards, we may just as well end all rational dialogue.
PAUL WROTE:
“My point, which Nabeel did not address, remains this:
the evidence of Daniel 7 suggests that for Daniel ‘the son of man’ is simply a symbol for Israel in contrast to Israel’s enemies.”
I would tend to agree that Daniel probably had Israel in mind. But I reject the idea that the only valid way to apply the Danielic concept of the Son of Man to Jesus is to show by historical-grammatical methods that this application was something that Daniel himself was aware of.
And in any case, it can be argued that as a part of Jesus’ self-concept was the idea that he was the embodiment of the new, true Israel. So in that sense, the title would indeed be applicable to Jesus even if the original meaning was Israel.
PAUL WROTE:
“your form of words is more elaborate than the 100% x 2 belief, but theologically it amounts to exactly the same thing and is still vunerable to the charge of philosophical incoherence. A person cannot be immortal and mortal; omniscient and ignorant; fully divine yet estranged from the divine, all at the same time, within the same person.”
As I have tried to indicate by probing questions, it seems to me that the argument from immortality vs. mortality is based on a confusion. Mortality in the case of humans means the separation of the soul from the body. In the case of the unembodied God, mortality would mean something quite different, namely, ceasing to exist. We agree that God cannot cease to exist. But assuming that God can become incarnate in the first place, I see no problem in saying that the mind-body connection can be broken so that a separation takes place.
PAUL WROTE:
“Jesus, on your view, knows all things, yet does not know the date of the End (or who touched him, according to one gospel story).”
We can think of the human consciousness of Jesus as a limited range of consciousness that exists within the unlimited range of consciousness that the Logos (the second person of the Trinity) has. The set of propositions known by that limited range would be a finite subset of the infinite set that constitutes the total knowledge of the Logos. There would seem to be no big problem in saying that the knowledge about the end of the world was ouside that finite subset but part of the infinite set, so that in his human nature, Jesus did not possess that knowledge.
PAUL WROTE:
“He is God almighty, yet cries out TO God, ‘why have you abandoned me?’, thus confessing ignorance of his plight and separation from his God at the same time.”
This is explicable within the model that I outlined above. Or at least it is not in any sense obvious that it cannot be so explained.
Price is a fringe scholar and if I remember correctly (I read it a while back), that particular review was especially distasteful. I’m truly surprised that you would think of that piece as “especially good”.
With regard to the guards at the tomb, I’d say that this is something that can’t be established by the methods of critical study of history with any great confidence, which is why I wouldn’t use it in an argument for the resurrection. But the argument remains strong enough even without the guards. It seems to me that the only plausible reasons for advancing any non-resurrection hypothesis as preferrable to the resurrection hypothesis are based on pre-commitments to philosophical naturalism or theological views that are inconsistent wit Jesus’ resurrection. But obviously, those are plausible only to the extent that naturalism or that particular set of theological views (such as Islam) are plausible in themselves.
I find it quite ironic that Christians scoff at biblical prophecies of the Messenger Muhahmmad (peace be upon him) since one can argue that there is more evidence of Muhammad (saws) being prophesized in the Bible than there is of Jesus in the OT. This is even more damning since many rabbis in Madinah converted to Islam based on them believing that Muhammad (pbuh) was prophecized in their scriptures. I do not recall any Jewish authorities contemporary with Jesus or his disciples converting to “Christianity” based on Jesus prophecies in the Bible.
zaytoon88,
I’m not particularly scoffing at anything. I’m only pointing out that arguably Paul is the one who should be scoffing at those alleged propecies of Muhammad if he were consistent.
haecceitasquidditas,
You seem to be making two mistakes here. First, you seem to assume that Paul subscribes to propecies of Muhammad in the Bible when (if I am correct) he made no such indication. Secondly, one can argue that the evidence in the Bible is actually more supportive of prophecies of Muhammad than of Jesus. By just claiming that Paul is “inconsistent” is to be guilty of the “you too” fallacy. And thirdly, even mentioning Muhammad (saws) in this discussion is a red herring. If Christians are not able to support “prophecies” of Jesus in the OT without lashing out at Islam, then you have a big problem.
With that said, I apologize to Paul for jumping in this discussion and would recommend that all interested parties take a look at Bassam Zawadi’s article on the topic of Prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_david_wood_s_article__muhammad_in_the_bible___an_analysis_of_the_muslim_appeal_to_biblical_prophecy_
Shabir Ally has a debate with Anis shorresh on this topic which can easily found on Youtube. He also debated this issue with James White in 2008. Unfortunately, the Christian orginization resonsible has yet to release the full video of that debate:)
woops, I meant to say “three mistakes”.
Well, I’m not so much assuming that Paul holds to the view that there are prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible. Rather, I’m trying to find out whether or not he does hold to that view, and whether or not he is being inconsistent in his application of evaluative criteria for religious texts. If he acknowledges the problem with consistency on these issues, it would seem to be the case that he should either drop his objection about the original meaning of the Danielic Son of Man, or else he should challenge the views of his fellow Muslims about there being prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible.
If we are going to drop the consistency requirement our discussion, I may just as well say that I know that Christianity is true because my parents taught me so, and that I know Islam to be false since there are no videotapes of Muhammad’s receiving his revelations. It wouldn’t matter that billions of people are taught by their parents to believe in the other faiths and neither would it matter that there are not videotapes that feature the key events of Christianity, since I’m allowed to apply my evaluative criteria inconsistently.
With regard to these suggested resources, I too am looking forward to the release of the Ally-White debates. If I find the time, I may look into the Shorrosh debate and Zadawi’s article as well. I do acknowledge that I’m not at all well-read on most of the Islamic topics.
I find it sad that haecceitasquidditas is being so polemical all of a sudden as I was hoping to have a reasoned scholarly discussion about the issues he initially raised (see the three points he initiated our discussion with).
Now he has changed the tone of our discussion. He said about me ‘If you have to resort to inconsistent standards, it is an indication that you are failing to justify your position. If people are allowed to apply inconsistent standards, we may just as well end all rational dialogue.’
This is a bizarre and frankly unacceptable lapse into personal criticism. We had been discussing Daniel 7, and nowhere had either of us mentioned Islam at all! But already he is on the attack accusing me of double standards!
This tactic is sadly familiar to me from previous discussions with Christians. All he needed to do was to suggest we discuss Islamic interpretations of the Bible and I would happily agree. Instead he makes our continued discussion of Daniel 7 dependent on a debate about Muslims views on the Bible!
This muddies the waters and makes any movement towards a better understanding of the Bible very difficult. Christians’ tiresome and obsessive graving for ‘consistency’, a word that is drummed out like a mantra, is often an excuse to avoid in-depth analysis of the Bible and short circuits any meaningful dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
Paul,
I’m sorry if you took my comments as needlessly polemical. That wasn’t really my intention.
However, if you read carefully what I have written, I have been generally quite careful to express my “attacks” in a CONDITIONAL manner. What I’ve wanted to communicate is this statement:
(S1) IF you in fact think that Muhammad is prophesied about in the Bible and are unable to establish this view with the same criteria that you were demanding of Nabeel during the debate, you are being inconsistent / using double standards.
When this is coupled with another statement, namely
(S2) Double standards / inconsistent application of evaluative criteria make meaningful rational dialogue impossible,
it should become quite clear why this is a concern for me.
So, I’d be really interested to know if you deny either S1, S2 or both.
“This tactic is sadly familiar to me from previous discussions with Christians. All he needed to do was to suggest we discuss Islamic interpretations of the Bible and I would happily agree. Instead he makes our continued discussion of Daniel 7 dependent on a debate about Muslims views on the Bible!”
However, I’m not making the ORIGINAL MEANING of Daniel 7 dependent on a debate about Muslim views. I’m simply calling for consistency where I spot a potential inconsistency. If you were having a debate about the original meaning of Daniel 7, the situation would be quite different. But please note that Nabeel’s case for high Christology in Jesus’ view of himself does not really depend on the ORIGINAL MEANING of Daniel 7, in so far as it can be established that JESUS’ APPLICATION of this term to himself displays high Christology. The original meaning of Daniel 7 can be relevant as a rebuttal to THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT (no matter how interesting that issue is on its own right) only if you think that such creative application of the Jewish scriptures would be strong evidence against Jesus’ ability to properly handle Scripture. But (aside from the fact that the Jewish exegetical methods of that time allowed all manner of creative, less literal interpretations) if such creative application would disqualify Jesus (or perhaps, by implication, the Gospel writers who erroneously put such an interpretation forward as Jesus’ own) in your mind, then surely you must be consistent in holding the Islamic interpretation of the Bible to that same high standard. For all that I know, you might even be doing just that. (I have no idea what kind of debates you have with your fellow Muslims who hold to the view that Muhammad is prophecied about in the Bible). But if you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is intellectually illegitimate to hold Christianity to a higher standard than Islam, then I don’t know how we can possibly make any progress in this discussion.
I agree, I dont think we can make any progress in this discussion.
It seems you are speculating about what I might or might not say about this or that, but this is all just hot air. You cannot wait to pounce on me for alleged ‘inconsistencies’ as this is the favourite polemical strategy of many Christians.
But you have played your card way too early.
This discussion has become a farce, and I think it’s best to terminate it here.
Well, if you truly think that demanding consistency is “hot air” and a mere “polemical strategy”, then I think that this speaks quite loudly to any impartial reader who may be following our exchange.
Please do not that I made my accusations in a conditional manner and provided you a chance to demonstrate that the condition does not apply to your views.
Anyway, I have no hard feelings towards you personally, even though I do have hard feelings towards double standards and inconsistent thinking.
Correction:
Should be “Please do note…” instead of “do not”.
To reiterate, I think this discussion has come to an end. My intention all along has been to debate the three points we agreed to discuss, but unfortunately this has been derailed.
The strategy adopted by haecceitasquidditas is transparent to all now: like Nabeel, he goes on the attack, impugning the sincerity of the other persons views, with an obsessive worrying about ‘inconsistency’ even though this is completely irrelevant to the debate.
haecceitasquidditas repeatedly makes unfounded accusations of ‘double standards’ and ‘inconsistent thinking’ though of course he cannot provide a SINGLE example of this from our discussion.
He thinks that because he makes these bizarre accusations in a so called ‘conditional manner’ (really just a ruse to get him off the hook when i protest), I’ll be impressed. No, I’m not.
I suppose that at the end of the day I am at fault in one respect: educated Christians (ie those who are really knowlegeable in Christian theology and Biblical scholarship) counsel against debating with fundamentalist Christians. It is a waste of time because fundamentalists deep down are fearful of the truth about the Bible, and will exercise all manner of intellectual gymnastics and psychological manipulation to avoid honest enquiry, because their fundamentalist faith is under threat. I know this because I too was once a fundamentalist Christian and know what it is to feel constantly under threat by disinterested historical enquiry.
So I really shouldn’t bother debating with the hard fundamentalist world view espoused by those Christians who post on Acts 17 ministries blog. That’s the lession I need to learn…
Paul
I agree. This discussion has come to an end. Again, I think that your last post speaks volumes to any impartial observer.
Again, I want to reiterate that I have no hard feelings toward you personally, and I wish you all the best.
Salam Paul,
Now that this particular discussion has ended, I am not too shy to ask you a question about Muslim-christian dialogue in general. It seems that whenever Muslims debate Christians, we always tend to see the same faces: Nabeel Qureishi and David Wood of Acts 17 Ministries, James White, Sam Shamoun, Jay Smith, etc. It is these fundementalist Christians who seem to consume most of the Musim apologists time in the west. Seeing as how you wrote an article on Muslim apologetics and now that you have first hand experience in debating due to your activities with the MDI, I would love to get your current thoughts on Muslim-Christian dialogue and some proposals for Muslim apologists to keep moving foreward with the dawah.
Salam Zaytoon88
excellent questions! I’ll need to think about that and get back to you.
In the meantime I have written a new post prompted by my recent contacts with Christians:
entitled ‘Escaping from Fundamentalism’ it’s on this blogs main page
regards
Paul
Salam Brother Paul
I recently watched your debate with Mr Qureishi and I would like to make a few observations.
1) When he asked you to answer a question about certain abrogated verses in the Quran and you honestly replied that you do not know, I thought it was really rude of him then to ask why you converted! Honestly these fundamentalist christians are so insecure about thier own religion they have to have answer to everything however absurd it sounds. Also when you asked him about the failed prophecies in the New Testament, his answer was it dosent matter!!! (unless I misheard). Of course it matters because thats how God tells them in the Old Testament to distinguish between a false prophet and a Real one, but I suppose there are so many in the NT that they dont know which argument to use any more e.g generation=race(lol), Futurists, preterists, partial preterists there may be others that I have not come across yet.
2)This argument for Jesus’s supposed crucifixion apparently being an absolute fact of history. I would just like to give a example if thats the right word of how the powers that be can falsify history but it somehow becomes fact. Say the TV,the internet all the modern technological advancies we have made did not occur. History will tell us that Saddam did have WMD’S, that somehow a man in cave thousands of miles away ochestrated the biggest attack on US soil,that there was NO GOVERMENT INVOLVEMENT in the assasination of JFK. Hd we not advanced so much all this stuff would have been told and no one would come up with a alternate theory and if someone did hardy anyone would know about it. I hope you do get the jist of what I am trying to convey with regards to this absokute fact about the supposed crucifixion.
wasalam
Salam maratsafin
thanks for your post. You make some good points
Paul