Impressions of the Event

Praise be to Allah (God) the lord and creator of the heavens and the earth.
Peace be upon Muhammad, his final messenger to humanity.
I was afriad that it might get weird. Really for my Men readers, have you ever noticed
that anything between you and a woman is always weird? Be honest-- its always weird.
Never has a Muslim Man debated a Christian woman. But I felt like giving Mary Jo a
chance to debate her beliefs in public.
Though the event was hugely attended by Christians, everyone I met there was
incredibly nice. After the debate these Christian folk were kind and friendly and
respectful, and treated me humanely despite my being 'The Muslim'. After the debate,
the Christians came up to me with good questions, comments and kind words. In all, I
gained a lot of respect for the Christian community. These were good people who
believed in doing good and compassion. I do still think they have a lot of weird beliefs
(the trinity, speaking in touges) and practices (singing in Church, baptism), but what do
you expect-- I am still a Muslim who believes that Christianity can be proven false. They
were nevertheless really, really nice. So there is a potential there to get along despite
our differences. The only time I felt hated or disrespected (though never threatened or in
danger) was on stage, and only by the audience's unkind reactions to me and their
clear cheering for Mary Jo Sharp when she tried to refute my arguements. I thought that
was very disrespectful for me--- there was a clear "Woo" from the audiecne, most likely
a man-- which was totally uncalled for. I did not appreciate his conduct. It was an
unnecessary and inappropriate. Worse the moderator, David Wood said nothing. I am
not sure why. I did everything a gentleman should do. But I did not feel I was treated like
a gentleman when it was my time to speak. To make things worse, a Christian woman
came to me after the debate and said that I was hugely offensive to her and her beliefs.
She didn't provide any examples. When I politely asked what it was she was talking
about she got mad and left (but now I think I know what she is talking about) So I felt
mistreated by some, but NOT all.
And of course there's Mary Jo Sharp. I actually like her, I consider her a friend. From
what I am hearing, right now she is the only Christian Woman apologist. If women ever
decide to do what she's doing-- then they have a real good example to follow. Mary Jo
Sharp is one of the greatest people I've ever met. No, I really mean that. She was polite
and nice towards me during the debate. She is one of the very few Christian women I
can get along with. In the past Christian women have lost their cool when speaking to
me, even though I always try to be on my best behavior and try to be as respectful as
possible (it's harder than you think). But when it came to Mary Jo Sharp-- I actually felt
respected and honored by her. This actually surprised me-- in the past some women
have been incredibly rude and disrespectful to me. But not this lady. She was nice and
understanding. So there is a potential there to get along despite our differences.But I
must say one thing in my defense, and I say this with all kindness and sincerity: those
who were offended (that Christian woman) need to lighten up. Let's face it: I think when

you cease being able to laugh at something, you die a little inside--and take another
step toward fanaticism, haughtiness, and intolerance. Laugh, learn, Live. Life is way too
short not to do these things.

My Responses to Mary Jo's Arguements:

The Historicy Arguement.
After going back and re-watching the debate I feel now I can adress some of the issues
and points she brings up. I am not sure if Mary Jo started off with a prayer or not. But
she's not the first one who has done this, in the past other Christian apologist have done
this, I am not sure why. But she's certainly free to do so. But anyways, she began by
saying the obvious that Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross by Roman
crucifixion. She then quotes the Quran on the crucifixion:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only
conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Quran 4:157)
And says the Quran is on shaky grounds because the crucifixion is "the most historical
event in history".
She mentions the historical record, including Joesphus, Tacitus, Lucian, The Talmud,
etc. First I'll adressed the two first century historians that mention Jesus alleged death
on the cross, however I didn't adresses Lucian or the Talmud. Here I will do so:
The Talmud: the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E.,
and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries
after the alleged crucifixion! So the material is very late. Moreover some scholars doubt
whether Jesus Christ is even mentioned in the Talmud. [1]
She also mentioned Lucian. However Lucian was born in 125 C.E. and died around 180
C.E. Therefore he can't be taken as an eye-witness to the event. He was simply
spouting hearsay. Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it
seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the
historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common
knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not
specify his sources, we will never know.Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite
plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder
had been crucified.
An author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for
his material can only give example of hearsay.

Now getting to Joesphus. In My opening I attempted to discredit Josephus. However

she attempted to save the Josephus account by saying even after the interpolations
found in the text-- it still mentions Jesus death on the cross. What she didn't get-- is that
even if the Josephus text came from Josepus hand--- it is still not an eye witness
account. Josephus was born in 37 C.E. and wrote his work around 93 C.E. well after the
crucifixion. But there are excellent reasons to suppose that this passage was not written
in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:
1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as
the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He
was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later
insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of
Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was
believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this
passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm
evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date
back to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic
Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for
blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian,
which was certainly not the case.
3. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the
works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of
Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria
would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies.
But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that
that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of
the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth
century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated
fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the
works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical
Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have
already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be
amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian
insertion. Only a few scholars accept it as true, but admit that there are interpolations in
the text. I agree with many Biblical scholars-- the text is most likely a fabrication done
by Eusebius. Clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be
the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much... he was not an eye
witness to Jesus crucifixion. [2]

As for Taticus.... In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians
"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered
death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44). In my opening
the issues that I raised againist Tacitus were this: Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a
later Christian interpolation? Or was Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told
him? Mary Jo's response was that Tacitus was a careful Roman historian and its
unlikely that either of my objections to the passage happened. Although I don't 100%
agree that Tacitus account was a fabrication done by Early Christians (although it is
certainly possible)-- I believe that Tacitus was most likely repeating what he was told by
Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were
Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign
of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's death by crucifixion. I
was glad that Mary Jo agreed with me that we don't know where Tacitus recieved his
information from--- further proving my point that we can't trust Taticus. So the Josephus
and Taticus accounts aren't good evidence.
As for first century evidence for Prophet Muhammad's existence, one would only have
to turn to Patricia Crone, the author of the infamous Hagarism. She says:
"There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it
notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years
of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between
632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and
dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and
chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions."
(Source)
Now the reason why I didn't respond to when she brought this up is because its a fact
that Prophet Muhamamd existed. All historians agree to it. Moreover I wanted to save
time.

Spirtual Resurrection vs Physical

Resurrection
Mary Jo Sharp's arguements about impresiable and preishable are also weak in
supporting the "phyiscal" resurrection. Impreishable vs perishable: Paul's distinction
between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (1 Corinthians 15: 42) is based on a
distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (1 Corinthians 15: 40, 47-9), and
it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul
does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept
it. This makes it reasonable that Paul means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal
one, not a body of flesh.

She says that The Greek word Soma is never used for a disembodied spirit. Well, thats
not true. Richard Carrier already covers this arguement. He does so well, I quote him
directly:
"The above chart makes the meaning of these Greek words clear: psychikos and
pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the
properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psych and pneuma
respectively. When we look at the nouns, we find that their associations are clear: one is
used typically to refer to a living body, hence a body of flesh and blood (a search of the
letters of Paul shows this to be his usual use of the word); the other, always to a
disembodied spirit. The word sma, which they modify in 1 Corinthians 15:44, means
only a distinct thing with volume and location, it does not entail what that thing is made
of or what its properties are or where it came from. Paul calls the resurrected a
pneumatikos sma to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which
is not a sma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not everywhere,
but has a distinct and localized existence as an individual. Paul clearly means to say
that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit, and cease to be what we
are when we were alive (a living body made of dust), but unlike the Holy Spirit, our spirit
is still organized as a new kind of body, more like Casper the Ghost." (Source)
The first Resurrection account that we have has no empty tomb, no physical
appearances. That's as close as we can get to the views of the early church. We know
that the earliest Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus. But they did
believe that Jesus had been resurrected, at least in a spiritual manner. The letters of
Paul are the earliest known Christian writings. Yet he never explicitly says that Jesus
was resurrected in bodily form. And in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he adds his experience on
the road to Damascus to the list of other post-resurrection appearances, suggesting that
he thought they were all of the same nature.
The first word is the word "buried." The word there is "etaphe," which is from the Greek
word for "taphos," which just means "burial." It does not mean "tomb," it does not mean
"sepulchre." The word for tomb is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion," (if I
pronounced it correctly). It's just a place of burial. And if Jesus was truly crucified by the
Roman authorities, it was their practice in those days to throw the decayed corpses of
the crucified people into a common grave.
Paul is not talking about a tomb here. He is simply talking about a man who died. Just
like when Moses died, in Deuteronomy, he was thrown in a grave -- nobody knows
where the grave was, somewhere in Moab -- yet Moses was seen resurrected bodily
from the dead. Did you know that? But nobody assumes that therefore there must have
been an empty tomb of Moses. Remember in Matthew 17, when Peter goes up into the
mountain with Jesus, James, and John, and Jesus is transfigured, and suddenly, who
does he see? Moses and Elijah. There he is. Are we to assume that there is an empty
tomb of Moses because Peter saw Moses up there? Of course we don't assume that.

Paul did not have a belief in an empty tomb, and he doesn't say that he did. Now, if you
think he did, you're committing a historical no-no here. What you are doing is you're
committing a kind of "Back To The Future" kind of historical analysis. You think you
know what is in Paul's mind because you know what the later Gospel writers in the 80s
and 90s, you think you know what they said about a bodily resurrection, so you are
imposing that, back in time, on to Paul's mind because you think you know better. Paul
was just kind of simple, but you know what he really meant. But the earliest Christians
didn't mention any of these exaggerated bodily things.
The second word I want you to look at is the word "raised." He said "he was buried. And
he was raised on the third day." That's not the word "resurrected." The word resurrected
is "anastasis [noun]," or "anistimi [verb]." The word that Paul used here for "raised" is
the word "egeiro" -- "egergetai." That is the word that is used throughout the New
Testament for the word "to wake up," to "awaken." Remember when the disciples were
on this boat and there was a storm and Jesus was asleep down below? They were
scared, and they went down below and they woke him up? [Matthew 8:25] They used
that word "egeiro": They "woke him up." "Jesus, help, help!" And all through the New
Testament we find this word "egeiro" being used not for a bodily resurrection, but for a
spiritual awakening, or for just waking up.
We all know that Jesus did not physically appear to Paul. Paul said he did. He was
blinded. He was knocked off his horse. He was in the habit of hearing voices and seeing
lights in the sky. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone. The people that
were with Paul didn't hear anyone. Well, it depends on which account you take. In one
account the men did hear the voice [Acts 9:7], and in another account they didn't [Acts
22:9] -- there's a biblical contradiction. They didn't hear or see anyone. So, what kind of
a "physical" appearance is this? In fact, this was after Jesus' ascension. What was
Jesus doing? Did he ascend up above the clouds for a while, and his body hung
around, and he came back down and said, "Hi, Paul. I want you to know I'm still hanging
around." Do you really think there was a physical, spatially limited body of Jesus
hanging up there, coming down to Paul? No, I don't think most Christians today believe
that.
The fact that Paul says that Jesus "ophthe" to him, and it was not a physical
appearance, gives us a clue that he does not intend us to believe that the other
appearances to these others were also physical. They were "spiritual" experiences,
what they believed to be spiritual experiences.
And, to nail this thing shut, just a few verses later, Paul is talking about the
Resurrection, right? He's explaining what the Resurrection means, and he says, in I
Corinthians 15:50, "Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God." So, how could he be talking about a physical resurrection and turn
right around and say "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He obviously
intends this to mean that Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not
bodily.

The Quran on the

Crucifixion/ Swoon theory
For hundreds of years Muslims have come up with four different interpretations to the
Quran 4:157. Below I'll list them, however in order to stay on topic, I'll just provide
evidence for the swoon theory. They are
1. Jesus soul left his body, and ascended to Allah.
The Jews and Romans then took an empty body of Jesus and crucified
that. Then the empty body was probably misplaced, stolen
or buried somewhere. Historians believe Jesus died.

2. Jesus was put on the cross, however he survived.

He walked away and came back to his disciples.
3. Jesus was not put on the cross, rather someone
else was. It could've been Judas, Peter, etc
4. The Whole story was made up. There was no
crucifixion of Jesus, the early Christians made up the entire thing.
Anyone of these theories are fair game. Any of these situations could've happened.
Which one is it? I am not going give out any spoilers, but next year, I think I know which
theory is the best, and will finally wrap up the long mystery of the Quran 4:157.
ANYWAYS, I agrued for point number 2, that Jesus was crucifed however he survived. I
have written about the swoon theory a lot last year. I personally think that the swoon
theory is much better than the subsitution theory (the theory that someone else was put
on the cross instead of Jesus). [3] I used the same arguements as I did before,
however I wasn't able to respond to a lot of my own points. What will say is this, there
were a some errors on Mary Jo Sharp's part. For example there is no evidence that
Jesus was nailed to the cross. Firstly, none of the gospels mention Jesus being 'nailed
to the cross'. Secondly, Jesus' two crossmates do not appear to be nailed to their
respective crosses, for they are seen jesting Jesus along with the crowd. It is highly
unlikely, that two fellows suffering from the excruciating pain of being 'nailed' to crosses
an hour or so earlier would have the mental alertness or their 'sense of irony' intact to
the point of reviling their third crossmate.(See Matthew 27:44) Rather he was most likely
bound. Although I didn't get a chance to respond to this, I'll do so now. As for the
scourging wounds, most experts doubt that they would have been fatal.Also According
to Mark 15:44, Pontius Pilate was very surprised when he heard that Jesus was already

dead.Jesus was on the cross for too short a period of time.Death by crucifixion would
have typically taken days. Proponents of the Swoon Theory (like me) often argue that
this could indicate that he was actually still alive. They say it is medically impossible for
Jesus to have survived. But what evidence do we have that Jesus was dead? We are
not told of doctors. Being mistaken for dead is not impossible.Ancient accounts of
misdiagnosed deaths exist. Pliny the Elder, writing in the 60's and 70's AD, collects
several of them in his Natural History (7.176-179). Also surviving Roman Crucifixion was
not impossible. Josephus watched one of three particular victims of crucifixion survive
(Life of Flavius Josephus 420-21). Plus Jesus most likely wasn't speared
(See John 19:34). This spearing of Jesus is probably an invention--there was a belief
that the messiah came "with water and blood" (1 John 5:6-8), representing baptism and
death. Consequently, several church fathers (Ambrose, Augustin, and Chrysostom in
particular) understood this spearing passage symbolically, not literally: the blood
represented the eucharist; the water, baptism.Moreover the account of his being
speared is illogical and late. It appears only in John, the last of the gospels to be written
(after 90 AD). There, soldiers decide not to break his legs because he is dead, and then
spear him to make sure he is dead. This is contradictory and inexplicable
behavior.Moreover Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention Jesus being speared.
Many scholars however reject the swoon theory. However by some miracle from Allah-it is still possible Jesus survived. And as always Allah knows best.

The Church
Fathers
Contary to what Christians apologists claim, the church fathers don't provide
independent confirmation of Jesus. Mary Jo says that the early Church fathers
established tradition, or a line of tranmission on the reliablity of the Gospels (false claim)
and to the alleged physical ressurected of Jesus. Although this may be true about the
Church Fathers establishing a line of tradition, it certainly isn't saying much. We don't
know where the church fathers got their information from. She mentioned a few of them
and here I will respond. She mentioned Polycarp, and his views on the crucifixion and
physical resurrection. However Polycarp converted around 109 C.E. While he may have
had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge
of his sources is uncertain. So the church fathers don't really prove anything. we may
note that Origen (CE 185-ca. 254) was simply too late. As for Ignatius, there is no
evidence that he had any sources other than the New Testament and so he cannot be
used as an independent source.

The Marytrs: Did any of the

disciples die for the Resurrection?

As I said in my rebuttals, none of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their
belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New
Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a
witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone.
But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some
trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he
had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last
breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical
resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was
at that moment in heavenAnd then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was
clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe
earlier appearances were any different.
The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle
James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would
have saved him, or what he thought he died for.In fact, we have one independent
account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother
of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that
account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape,
and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as
reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like
Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.
[4]
So nobody died for any belief in the "resurrection". Christian apologists need to stop
using that arguement.

Inanna/ Pagan Influences on

Christianity
Orginally Mary Jo Sharp wanted to debate me the Pagan Myth influences on
Christianity. I wasn't interested and offered to debate either was Jesus crucified or Who
Was Jesus. Hence this topic. Also this topic is misunderstood. What I mean when I bring
up pagan saviors is not that the original Christians copied and stole the idea of
worshipping a crucified deity from the Sumerians, etc but that the story of a crucified
and resurrected deity is NOT unique to Christianity. Rather its been done before. This
gets embarrsing for my Christian friends. The fact is the Sumerians used to worship
the crucified and resurrected Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and
"Queen of Heaven") around 1500 B.C.E. [5] And of course there's Appolonis of Tyana.
Around the 4th century Anti-Christian writers were pointing out striking similarities
between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius was a Neo-Pyhagorean teacher
who was born just before the Christian era. Apollonius was referred to as the Son of
God, did miracles, wa s killed, was "resurrected" in front of his followers and ascended
into heaven. So to my Christian friends, the story of Jesus is NOT unique. Rather its

been done before. Mary Jo tried to argue that the story of Innana is different, and I
agree the main story of Innana is different than the one of Jesus. However the fact is
that she was crucified and resurrected. There is no denying that fact. And Apollonius
was also resurrected and referred to as the son of God. So the story is not unique, its
been done before. Many times in fact.
What about Islam? Does Islam also have paganistic roots? No it doesn't. The Prophet
Muhammad rejected idolatry his entire life, he was never seen bowing to the false gods,
and he adhered to the religion of Abraham known as Hanafi. I already covered this
arguement in my first debate review.

Misquotes from the Quran about the early Christians and the
Bible/What the Quran says about the Crucifixion of Christ
However the Quran clearly says the Bible (Both the Old and New Testaments) are
corrupt many times. Here are the Quotes I brought up from the Quran to prove it during
the debate:
Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that
a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they
understood it. (Quran 2:75)
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from
Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write,
and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran 2:79)
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to
them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Quran 4:157)
There are many other verses from the Quran that clearly say the Bible has been badly
corrupted which the reader can refer to another article I wrote else where [6]. But Mary
Jo's misrepresentation of the context of the Quran is nothing new. Christians have been
misreading the Quran and coming up with their own interpretations of what the Quran is
talking about it. The worse interpretation of the Quran I've heard was Mary Jo's
interpretation of the Quran 61:14. The verse reads:
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the
Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are
Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion

disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they
became the ones that prevailed. (Quran 61:14)
Mary Jo Sharp makes up her own interpretation of this verse and says the disciples had
the gospel, therefore Muslims can't argue that the New Testament has been corrupted. I
feel like she misunderstood what I said in my first rebuttal, the Quran clearly says
the New Testament has been corrupted in Quran 4:157. Other verses which speak of
the Christians corrupting their message and their book would be the Quran 5:14-15.
These verses clearly say Christians corrupted their message and that includes their
scriputure (The entire New Testament). So her arguement doesn't really hold there.

The Problems with

Paul
Some of the debate focused on the issues of Paul of Tarsus and his credibity. In
defense of Paul's credibility--- Mary Jo said that Paul went up to Jerusalem and spoke
with the disciples and talked to them, as well as lived with them (See Galatians 2 for
example). However I argued that we can't trust Paul because he never knew Jesus.
Paul seems unaware of Jesus life on earth. As G.A. Wells points out (Paul's epistles)
"they give no indication of the time or place of Jesus earlthy existence. They never refer
to his trail before a Roman offical nor to Jerusalem as the place of his execution. They
never mention none of the miracles he is supposed to have worked" [7] . So None of
Paul's epistles say anything about Jesus. No virgin birth, quotes nothing Jesus said,
never mentions John the Baptist, Judas or Peter denying Jesus three times. Paul
seems completely unaware of Jesus life. Morever he was not an eye witness to Jesus
life. So there are no reasons for us to believe anything he says.
Paul, we know, never claimed to have met Jesus. And Paul talked about a lot of the
same issues and would have benefited from quoting Jesus, for example, on divorce -Paul talked about divorce a lot, and Paul said there should be no divorce. He forgot to
take into account the fact that Jesus did allow for some divorce, in some case. He
contradicted Jesus. So, Paul seemed to be pretty ignorant. I know this is an argument
from silence, but wouldn't it have been good evidence if Paul had said something? It
would have been good evidence if Paul had told us a few things about this man, Jesus
that he supposedly had met physically.
Listen to what Paul says in Romans 3:7: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto God's glory, why yet am I also judged a sinner?" Paul said it's okay
to tell a lie for the glory of God. Here's a man who admits that lying is okay. And we're
going to trust his testimony? Look it up. Romans chapter 3, verse 7. The Greek word
there is "pseusma," a "lie." So was Paul trustworthly? Doesn't look like it.

Of course there is a really good book called Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity by Walter Bauer. He documents that the early Jewish Christians were at
odds with the Pauline Minstry. Its a really good book, I highly suggest everyone reads
it.

The Truth about the

Gospels
Its a fact, all Biblical Scholars agree on that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We
don't know what their sources were. All scholars agree that the Gospels are all
annoymous. Below I quote some quotes from scholars who say so:
The articles on the Gospels in the Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) give the
following information on their authorship:
* Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation;
probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.
* Mark: Notes confusion in the traditional identification of the author but offers no
hypothesis.
* Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the
apostle Paul.
* John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John,
probably residents of Ephesus.
"It is highly questionable that any of them [the gospels] was written by an eyewitness.
Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his
disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. The one gospel for which
the strongest case can be made that it was written by the man whose name it bears,
Luke, acknowledges that its author was not himself an eyewitness of the events he
portrays (Luke 1:1-2)" [8]
Bart Ehrman says: "The four Gospels that eventually made it into the New
Testament, for example, are all anonymous, written in the third person about Jesus and
his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ("One day, when Jesus
and I went into Capernaum..."), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion
of an eyewitness. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because
sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need
for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John)
and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the travelling
companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and
recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively welleducated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first
century." [9]

There are many other quotes I can quote, but to save time and space I think these will
suffice. They're not biographies. They might contain some facts about Jesus but that's
all we have. In a future essay I'll try to comment more about this. The point of me
bringing this up was to show that the Gospels simply cannot be taken as historical
annals of Jesus--- rather they are religious propaganda. The gospels were written in the
second half of the 1st century long after Jesus left the earth, and derived primarily from
oral traditions about his speeches and activities; oral narrations are adatped and
reworked with each retelling. The gospels were not objective but passionate: they had a
theological purpose and were writing for small groups of believers mostly outside of
Palestine. When it comes to the New Testament gospels, We've got third- and fourthhand testimony. We've got anonymous writers. We've got people whose character is
impugned by telling lies and by being under emotional distress. We've got things that we
can't check out. We have an obvious progression, evolution of events from simple to
fantastic embellishments. So, I don't call this strong evidence. It is some kind of
evidence, I agree. It's something.

After thoughts: Looking to the future

of Islamic Apologetics
Looking back, I think I did say something offensive. I said that the disciples of Jesus
were slow and dim witted. Of course I read this in the Gospel of Mark, but I realize that I
was out of line saying that. So I apologize to any Christians I may have offended. And
now I realize why that woman was so offended. But I don't care, its not like I'll ever see
her again. If she was so offended by the statement, she needs to relax. Of course my
Dad did not help, in fact he made things worse trying to talk to her. She ran away-either from my dad or because I kept ignoring her-- but that was the only weird
experience I had during the debate. Of course there was also another woman who
came up to me (I don't think I have ever been aporoached by so many Christian women
before) and she said she would "pray" for me. She didn't even know my name.
For the past four years I watched from the sidelines as Islamic apologists were debating
and arguing againist Christian and atheist apologists. Now, I am actually an Muslim
apologist. Let me make it clear that I am NOT an Ahmedyyia Muslim. I am a Sunni
(Orthodox) Muslim. I don't support most of their views. I support and believe the belief
that Jesus survived--- however there is one more explanation to the Quran 4:157 that
explains everything, including the fact that the original resurrection was spiritual, what
most historians agree to what happened to Jesus during the crucifixion, etc. Its a very
powerful explanation of the facts that will disprove the resurrection and agree historically
of what happened to Jesus. What is it? I am not going to give any spoilers away, but
next year inshallah, if able to debate it with a Christian, lets just say, It will finally prove
the Quran 4:157. It will be a very historically sound explanation.

Looking to the future, I hope to become more scholarly, professional and respectful
when discussing religion. No longer do I go to Anti-Islamic websites and fight with them,
no longer do I entertain discussions with hate mongers/Islam bashers. If I keep doing
this, I am never going to get any where. From now on (2009) I only discuss religion with
scholarly people.
I am trying very hard to become less like David and Nabeel and more like Richard
Carrier, professional, scholarly, etc. I think I am more or less suceeding in my goals.
Only with the help of Allah, the only God who exists, will I be sucessful in doing what I
want to do--- spreading the truth of Islam.
I think things are becoming better for Muslim Apologists. We have people Bassam
Zawadi and Shabir Ally who know what their doing. And then there are people like me
and Osama Abdullah who still have a long way to go. However we are improving.
Things are getting better. But my advice to Muslim Apologists would be avoid large and
complicated topics such as Is Muhammad a Prophet of God, and rather focus on
smaller topics: Who was Jesus, Was Jesus crucified,etc. I think thats the best way to
go.

Conclusions
In the end, I have no hard feelings. I think Mary Jo Sharp was a very nice lady. And I
think she won the debate. But again I am not impressed with her arguements for
Christianity, especially her defense of the physical ressurection. In fact I am not
impressed at all with the answers most Christian apologists have to say about their
faith. A lot of Christian apologists are masterful communicators while Muslim Apologists,
sometimes find it very difficult to communicate with others about their faith. Of course
David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi usually get carried away when discussing Christianity
or Islam. They even become insulting. But not this woman. She kept her cool and she
was fun to work with. I look forwarded to debating her again. Whenever she wants she
can contact me. In terms of production value, there is a high definition video of the
debate here. It looks really good.
All in all, it was a superb time. I learned a lot, . I have already thanked in person those
who bore most of the burden of bringing this event to fruition--most especially Pastor
George Saiege and Nabeel Qureshi who all worked very hard. I am honored that Mary
Jo Sharp flew all the way from Texas to Michgian for this debate, and hear me defend a
belief she certainly didn't share. Peace and blessings be upon this lady. I may have lost
the debate-- but at least I won a new friend, Mary Jo Sharp.

Notes and
Bibliography

[1] For the exact reference see Massey, Gerald, "Gerald Massey's Lectures: The
Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ," 1900
[2] More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be
found in: Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament.
Eerdmans, 1974, Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor
Books) 1988, France, Richard T. The Evidence for JesusIntervarsity Press, 1986.
[3] For more on the subsitution theory see Ehteshaam Gulam: Was Someone else put
on the cross instead of Jesus? (2008)
[4] Acts 12:2. Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. "James, St, 'the
Great'." Also see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200-1; Hegesippus apud Eusebius,
History of the Church 2.23. Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v.
"James, St, 'the Lord's brother'" and Jeffery Jay Lowder's discussion of the Josephus
reference in Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus: Is It Reliable?.
[5] Samuel Noah Kramer, "The First Tale of Resurrection," History Begins at Sumer:
Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History, 3rd ed. (1981): pp. 154-67. For more on
Inanna, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis: G. Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and Mystic
Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis (1997); Diane Wolkstein, Inanna, Queen of
Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer (1983); Eugene Lane, Cybele,
Attis and Related Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren (1996) and M. J.
Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult (1977); Betty De Shong Meador,
Lady of Largest Heart: Poems of the Sumerian High Priestess Enheduanna (2001).
[6] For more on where the Quran says the Bible has been corrupted see Ehteshaam
Gulam: What the Quran says about the Bible? (2009)
[7] G.A. Wells page 364
[8] Kee, Young, and Froelich, 1965, p. 55
[9] Ehrman (2003) p235

Ehrman, Bart . Lost Christianities: Battle for the Scripture we never knew New York City,
Oxford Press, 2003
Kee, H.C., Young, F.W., and Froelich, K. (1965), Understanding the New Testament,
2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Ha
Wells, G.A. (1996), The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court.

Was Jesus Crucified? (2008)

Ehteshaam examines both claims from Christianity and Islam on Jesus last hours on earth.
Ehteshaam proves that the Bible supports the Quranic account that Jesus wasn't killed on the
Cross. This essay also clarifies minsconceptions Both Christians and Muslims have on the Quran
regarding the Crucifixion.
Ehteshaam Gulam
Christians claim from the Bible (Colosians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, etc.) that Jesus died by
crucifixion and then was resurrected three days later. However Muslims claim from
the Quran (Quran 4:157-158) that Jesus wasn't killed nor crucified. So who's telling the truth?
Are Christians right or are the Muslims right? The purpose of this essay is to show that the
Muslims are correct, Jesus was not killed on the cross. I'll prove this from the Bible, Early
Christian history and Early Christian Books. I'll also clarify many misconceptions about the
Quran's position on Jesus crucifixion.
The Historical Record
Some Christian Apologetics claim that Jesus had to have been killed on the cross, due to the
historical record. They claim that there are several documents in the 1st century that prove that
Jesus was crucified. However the fact is that these "sources" of the crucifixion of Jesus come
from authors who lived after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.none of their accounts serve as
eyewitness evidence for any alleged crucifixion of Jesus. There were over 60 historians in the 1st
century in the Roman world. Yet only two non-Christian sources in the entire 1st century
mention that Jesus was crucified. Here I'll analyze both Josephus and Tacitus sources and explain
why they shouldn't be trusted as evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a
crucified Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus
(in Antiquitiescame from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely,
Eusebius), Josephus was born in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus,and that puts
him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the
Gospels were written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his
information could only serve as hearsay.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged death of

Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec.44), which he wrote
around 109 C.E. The problem with Tacitus is he gives no source for his material.Although many
have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus,the very fact that his birth
happened after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of
Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the
rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event
itself. Not
one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about the
death of Jesus. Therefore there is no historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross.
Was Jesus Crucified according to the Bible?
Paul preaches that salvation can be obtained through believing that Jesus was killed and
resurrected in 1 Corinthians 15:14. If there is no crucifixion and resurrection, then there is no
Christianity. That's the whole point of Christianity. However this story of a "Son of God" coming
and being killed and being resurrected is not unique. This story actually existed before
Christianity came in the 1st century. For example the Sumerians used to believe that their top
Goddess Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar and Goddess of Love, Queen of Heaven) was stripped
naked and crucified and rose from the dead. This story was perserved in clay tablets dating over
a 1000 years before Christ. So the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did pre-date Christianity
and had entered Jewish society with Palestine. (Source, Richard Carrier's online Article).
Was Jesus Crucified according to the Bible?
(Special thanks to Doctor Zakir Naik and the late Ahmed Deedat for their work on this subject.
All arguements are taken from both their debates, respectively. I claim no originality here).
Before getting to the Crucifixion, we need to look at what Paul (the earliest writer of the New
Testament, his epistles are dated 50-60 C.E.) says about resurrected bodies. Paul says in 1
Corinthians 15:42-44, that resurrected bodies are spirtualised. They are not phyiscal bodies like
we have. Jesus says the same thing in Luke 20:27-36, Resurrected bodies are spirtual and not
phyiscal. (Also see Matthew 22:30-37). Now it gets interesting, nowhere in the Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke or Johndoes it say that Jesus was resurrected. In the words of Dr.Naik
"Not a single verse in any of the Gospels mention that Jesus was resurrected."
After the alleged crucifixion, Jesus comes into the upper room to meet his disciples. The
disciples however were terrified and scared of Jesus. They thought he was a spirit.
(See Luke 24:36-43) The disciples were not eye-witnesses to the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, in
fact they all ran away from him after he was arrested (Mark14:50). However Jesus wanted to
prove he was not a spirit, rather he was physical. Jesus tells his disciples that he was not a spirit
or resurrected. Jesus shows his hands and his feet. He then asks his disciples if they have any
food, and they give him broiled fish and honeycomb and he eats. This proves Jesus was not
resurrected or spiritualized. Rather he was alive during and after the crucifixion. (Again
see Luke 24:36-43). If Jesus had been resurrected, he would've been a spirit according to his own
words (Luke 20:27-37) and Paul's writings (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). However this was not the

case. Jesus proved he was a physical body.

According to Mark 16:1 and John 20:1, Mary Magadelne goes to the tomb of Jesus. The question
here is why should Mary go to the tomb after the crucifixion of Jesus? If you read Mark 16:1, she
went to his tomb to annoit or to rub Jesus's body. But if Jesus was dead, why would she need to
rub or annoit his dead body? It makes more sense that Jesus was alive. Mary was one of the
people who witnessed the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and was one of the people who gave a
burial bath to Jesus. She must've seen life in him and kept quiet about it. The stone also was
moved out of the tomb when Mary Magadene goes to the tomb (Mark 16:4). Even the winding
sheets (that were used to cover Jesus during his burial) were unwound and put aside. So why
should the winding sheets be unwounded and the stone removed? If Jesus really was resurrected
then he would be spiritualized thus he would've been able to move and pass through the sheets
and the stone blocking the tomb. Thus this proves that Jesus came out a physical body, not a
spirtual body.
In John 20:15, Jesus sees Mary weeping. Jesus then comes to her, and Mary sees that Jesus is
disguised as a gardener. Now why was Jesus disguised as a gardener? Do resurrected bodies look
like gardeners? He was probably scared of the Jews. If Jesus was resurrected then he would be
spirtualized. And he wouldn't need to be afraid of the Jews because according to Hebrews 9:27 ,
a man dies only once. After that is judgement day. Jesus says in Luke 20:36, resurrected bodies
can't die once they are resurrected. After Mary realizes that it's Jesus who has come back, she
rushes to him in John 20:15-16-17. Jesus then tells her not to touch him not (John 20:17). He
probably didn't want her to touch him because it would phyiscally hurt him if she did. Jesus then
says he has not yet ascended to the father in John 20:17. This means that Jesus had not yet been
dead. Jesus never said he was resurrected-- proving that he was alive. In Mark 16:11-- the
disciples of Jesus hear that Jesus was alive from Mary Magdalene. In Matthew 12:38-40, the
Jews asked Jesus for a miracle. Jesus then calls the Jews an evil and adulterous generation, Jesus
says that the only miracle they will see is the sign of Jonah:
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a
miraculous sign from you."He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a
miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.For as Jonah was
three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:38-40)
Everyone knows the story of Jonah--- Jonah ran away from preaching to his people, got
swallowed by a whale and then spit out three days later. But how was Johah in the belly of the
whale. He was alive. Jonah survived his ordeal. And same thing here, Jesus is saying that he will
be like Jonah, he will also survive his ordeal-- like Jonah did. Christians however say its a time
factor issue. However Jesus didn't furfil the "time factor" here--- Jesus was in the tomb for 1 day
and 2 nights. Jesus was allegedly crucified on Friday--- then on Sunday Mary went to the tomb.
So Jesus survived the crucifixion. He was alive the entire time. If Jesus survived there was no
resurrection. No death of Jesus--then no resurrection. No Death of Jesus, no Resurrection-- no
Christianity.

A List of Proofs that Jesus survived and didnt die on the cross
The following is a list of evidences from the Gospels that Jesus was alive and didnt die on the
cross:
1.) Jesus was on the cross for only three hours. Its not possible for anyone to die three hours
on the cross. As Ahmed Deedat says Ponitius Pilate knew from experience that no man can die
so soon by crucifixion he suspected that Jesus was alive. (Mark 15:44)
2.) Jesuss two cross mates were aliveproving that even Jesus was alive.
(Mark 15:32, Luke23:39-43, John 19:32)
3.) Jesus legs were not broken by the Romans. Furhter evidence that Jesus was alive and
survived the crucifixion. (John 19:33)
4.) The stone was removed and winding sheets were unwound. Proving that Jesus was alive.
(Mark 16:1,4 John 20:1,7)
5.) Jesus was disguised as a gardener. Why would Resurrected bodies need to be disguised as a
gardener? This only makes sense if Jesus was trying to hide from the Jews and Romans. He was
hiding in fear that they would kill him.
6.) The Tomb of Jesus according to Biblical scholars was big and spaciousthis is only
necessary if Jesus was alive.
7.) Jesus forbids Mary Magdalene from touching him. This is because Jesuss physical body
was hurt and not yet fully healed. It would hurt Jesus if Mary touched him. (John 20:15-17)
8.) Jesus says that he had not yet ascended unto his father, which means he was alive.
(John 20:17)
9.) Mary Magdalene was not afraid to recognize him. Proving Jesus was alive. (John 20:16)
10.) In the upper room, Jesus shows his hands and feet to show he wasnt a spirit but he was
alive. (Luke 24:36-49)
11.) The Disciples, who were not there during his alleged crucifixion were overjoyed to see
him. They were overjoyed because he was alive. (See above verse)
12.) Jesus eats broiled fish and honey comb to prove he was alive. Ressurected bodies dont
have physical bodies therefore resurrected bodies dont need to eat. (Luke24:36-49)
13.) The disciples hear from Mary Magdalene that Jesus was alive. (Mark 16:9-11)
14.) The sign of Jonah, Matthew 12:40. The completion of the sign of Jonah is only if Jesus
survived his ordeal as Jonah before him survived his.
So in short Jesus was put on the cross but he didn't die. After he appeared to his disciples he
ascended into heaven Mark 16:19 (which Biblical scholars say is a later addition and not in the
most ancient manuscripts) and Luke 24:51. Thus the swoon theory (that Jesus fainted on the
cross and came back three days later after healing himself in the tomb) vindicates the Quran's
account on the crucifixion. Without the Crucifixion and "resurrection" of Jesus-- Christianity is
pretty much nothing. And I've just proved that Jesus didn't die on the cross-- therefore
Christianity falls apart and is nothing. Quickly touching on the alleged resurrection of Jesus-there are absoultely no historical records for the resurrection of Jesus. None whatsoever. What
does this tell you? It tells you its just a myth the early Christians (probably the second generation
Christains) made up in order to get converts. No Modern Historian in their right mind will ever
say that Jesus was resurrected-- because it never happened. He was resusated if anything. And

again this vindicates the Quranic statement that they didn't kill Jesus nor crucifiy him, but it just
looked like they did (Quran 4:157). It's my guess that Paul and the other early Christians were
probably preaching some sort of spirtual resurrection of Jesus (Probably they did so by these
Greek/Roman myths of Gods and Goddess being resurrected), not a phyiscal resurrection.

Was Jesus substituted on the Cross?

By Ehteshaam Gulam

Muslims claim that somebody other than Jesus was put on the cross on the day of the crucifixion.
The claim was first made by Muslim scholar Al-Baidawi (1226-60 C.E.) writes that Jesus told
his disciples in advance that whoever volunteered would go to heaven. The following narration
recorded in the Qur'anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir (Who was an Islamic scholar and a commentator
on the Quran) is commonly told by Muslims as the authentic account of what happened on the
day of the crucifixion by orthodox Sunni scholars:
Ibn Abbas said, Just before Allah raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his disciples, who
were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping with water (as if he had just
had a bath) and he said, There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after
you had believed in me. He then asked, Who among you will volunteer for his appearance to be
transformed into mine, and be killed in my place. Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with
me (in Paradise). One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to sit
down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man volunteered and Jesus asked
him to sit down again. Then the young man volunteered a third time and Jesus said, You will be
that man, and the resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to Heaven
from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking for Jesus, they found that
young man and crucified him. Some of Jesus followers disbelieved in him twelve times after
they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, the Jacobites, said,
Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to Heaven. Another group, the
Nestorians, said, The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to

Heaven. Another group, the Muslims, said, The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with
us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him. The two disbelieving groups
cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was
then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad (Peace be upon him). An-Nasai, Al-Kubra, 6:489)
Without a doubt this is an intersting story about how Christianity got started. But there is no
historical evidence for the rise of Christianity the way it is described here by Al Baidawi and Ibn
Kathir. Rather like I mentioned in the Ealry Christainity section-- there were multiple churches
after the Jerusalem Church was destroyed (around 70 CE) and many early Christians had
different thoughts about who Jesus was. There were different Early Christian gospels, epistles,
writings, etc. Only around The Council of Nicea (325 CE) were steps taken to not only canonize
the New Testament but to make a set an orthodox set of beliefs (thus this is where the Trinity-father, son and holy spirit are one, came from). (see Ehramn 2003 page 136)
Modern Muslim scholars also support the subsitution theory. Abdullah Yusef Ali in his The
Meaning of the Holy Quran
Commentary supports that someone other than Jesus was put on the cross that day. In his
commentary on Quran4:157 he writes:
"The end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth, and indeed the
greater part of his private life, except the three main years of his ministry. It is not profitable to
discuss the many doubts and conjectures among the early Christian sects and among Muslim
theologians. The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine that his
life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third day he rose in the body
with his wound intact, and walked about and conversed, and ate with his disciples, and was
afterwards taken up bodily to heaven. This is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood
sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam. But some of the early
Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The Basilidans [Basilides]
believed that someone else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real
physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was
only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and
merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of
substitution on the Cross. The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the
Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds
of some of his enemies ; that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain ; and
that he was taken up to God (see next verse and note)." (The holy Quran, text, translation and
commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. 1872-1952, First published in 1938, 1973 ed., p. 230,
footnote 663, commenting on 4:157)
The Problem here is that the Quran never says that someone else was put on the cross instead of
Jesus. Rather what the Quran says is that it only looked like Jesus was crucified but in realtity he
wasn't. The Quranic verse is as follows:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ

therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a
surety they killed him not:- (Quran 4:157 Abduallah Yousef Ali Translation)
Abdullah Yousef Ali's translation is the most trusted translation of the Quran. Other trusted
translations of the Quran also dont say anything about Jesus being subsituted on the cross. The
following information from an Islamic website points this out. I quote the site:
SAMPLES OF TRANSLATION
While translating the complete verse, many translators remained, as far as possible, loyal to
actual Arabic words and refrained from advocating specific theories. Here most translators did
not omit any key word from translating, however, quite a few ventured beyond what Allah said.
These few translators very surreptitiously interjected additional words inside the actual
translation suggesting these were revealed text. Here are a few representative works:
Yusuf Ali

....

Only a likenss of that was shown to them.

Pickthall

But it appeared so unto them; .

M. H. Shakir

But it appeared to them so (like Isa) ..

Hilali and Khan

. but the resemblance of 'Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they
killed that man) .
Rodwell

T. J. Irving
Sher Ali

but they had only his likeness ..

even though it seemed so to them .

...

but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; ....

Rashad Khalifa

. they were made to think that they did .

Arthur J. Arberry
Mohammad Ali
Al-bukhari

. Only a likeness of that was shown to them.

. but he was made to appear to them as such.

But this matter was made dubious to them. .

Mohammad Asad
Zohurul Hoque

... but it only seemed to them (as if it had been so) ....
...

but he was made to resemble to them. ...

In the above sample, only Shakir, Hilali & Khan and Rodwell suggested that a different person
be substituted. Shakir placed 'like Isa' within parenthesis to suggest what may have happened.
Rodwell simply structured the sentence to suggest the substitution theory. Hilali & Khan
overstepped all boundaries and clearly falsified by putting interpolated words inside the
translation. Shakir suggested a theory by placing his opinion inside paranthesis and not in the
actual text. Shakir and Rodwell may be excused for inaccurate translations, but Hilali & Khan

remain notoriously corrupt and unpardonable for absolutely wrong translation. No sane person
can find the words 'Isa' and 'another man' in actual Arabic text. Hilali & Khan tried to justify the
substitution theory by resorting to cheating, falsifying the Quran, interpolating totally imaginary
words and staying miles away from revealed text. (Source)
The substitution theory was propounded to justify that Jesus was not crucified. Muslims do have
a point when they say Allah clearly says in the Quran that they didn't kill Jesus nor crucify him.
And I agree. However what does it mean when someone is crucified? It means that the person
was killed by being nailed to a cross. The Jews and Romans had thousands of people crucified.
However some people survived. Jesus himself predicted that he would survive the crucifixion
(Matthew12:40) If a person surivived the crucifixion then walked away--- he wasn't killed nor
crucified. And this is what happened to Jesus--- Jesus wasn't killed while he was on the cross--rather he survivied and then came back to his disciples. I document this here. So the swoon
theory (that Jesus survivied the cross) vindicates the Quranic account of the Crucifixion. The
subsitution theory, that somebody other than Jesus was put on the cross, raises too many
problems. One it implies that Allah cheated and decieved everyone, two it implies that an
innocent person died for nothing, and three it implies in the words of an Anti-Islamic writer,
David Wood, "Allah created Christianity by Accident". Rather what happened is that Jesus was
put on the cross and survived. He then by the power of Allah ascended to heaven. That's what the
Gospels tell us-- and that's the version I support. It was probably Paul's (who never met the
historical Jesus) preaching of a spirtual resurrection of Jesus that the early Christians (probably
the second generation of believers) misunderstood and developed the idea of a physical
resurrection (although Jesus was never resurrected according to any of the gospels). I think the
disciples believed Jesus was actually resisatated instead of resurrected and because of the
growing myth--- whoever wrote the four gospels and Acts (whom Biblical scholars believe was
the same annoymous author of Luke) started to say that Jesus died and rose again. However the
four gosples clearly say that Jesus survived. Acts of the Apostles isn't really a historically reliable
document--- since the author of Luke wasn't really a good historian. Historian Richard Carrier
documents this well here. The author of Luke and Acts was not an eye witness to any of the
events he writes about (See Luke 1:1-4)
Is there evidnece for the subsitution theory?
A common question I get asked is there evidence for the subsitution theory by Muslims. The
early Chrsitian writings that I know that support someone else was put on the cross the day of the
crucifixion is The Apocalypse of Peter (*) found in the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945 written
sometime around 300 CE) and The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (*) (also found in the Nag
Hammadi Library and also written around the 3rd century). The Acts of John (written around
150-200 CE) also says that Jesus crucifixion was an illusion. So these early Christian books
support the Quran, that Jesus was killed nor crucified and support the subsitution theory. The
Early Christian group the Docetists (100 CE) believed that Jesus crucifixion was an illusion.
(Ehramn 2003 pg.15) Another early Christian group, the Basildeans ( around the 2nd century)
believed that Simon Of Cyene ( the person who carried Jesus cross
in Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26) was instaed crucified instead of Jesus. What is
interesting about the Basildeans is that they claimed to have been taught by Glaucias-- a secert
interpreter of Peter-- the disciple of Jesus. (Ehramn, 2003) But as an historian and Muslim I

believe that Jesus surivived his crucifixion and then ascended to Allah. There's a lot of good
evidence for this.
When I embarked on researching this stuff five years ago (this actually partly launched my
interest in compartive religion ) I found it excruciatingly hard to find anything supporting the
subsitution theory. There is also some evidence from the Gospel of Matthew that supports the
subsitution theory, which I document here.
The more I reserached I believe that Jesus survived his ordeal, thus completing the sign of Jonah
then ascended to Allah. Who knows maybe one day, Christian scholars and archeologists will
find evidence from a book actually written by a disciple that Jesus wasn't really crucified and
instead someone else (possibly Simon of Cyene or antoher man named Jesus the political leader
of the Jews). But till we find hard evidence for the subsitution theory-- I am sticking with the
swoon theory that Modern schoalrs on Islam such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Shabir Ally
believe. Ahmed Deedat ( a late Muslim scholar on the Bible--- May Allah bless him) wrote
extensively on the swoon theory. However Ahmed Deedat also believed that someone else was
crucified instead of Jesus and Jesus got away. And as always, Allah knows best!

Full Review of Wood Vs. Gulam Debate:

Was Jesus Crucified?
By Ehteshaam Gulam

The Debate between me and David Wood on the topic Was Jesus Crucified was held in Calvary
Church of Romulus, Michigan on April 19, 2009. I finally met both David Wood and Nabeel
Qureshi. I got along with both of them and I consider both of them my friends, especially Nabeel
Qureshi, because I can understand where he comes from. I feel like I know and understand David
and Nabeel better know that I met them in person. In the past I was told that both of them are
hate mongers and constantly insult Islam are dishonest when speaking about Islam while having
delusions of their own faith. But this isn't true--- both of them are nice and easy to get along
with, especially Nabeel. But I can understand people warning me and others about Christian
Apologists dishonest tactics when they deal with other religions. Now I just don't trust--or in
some cases, actively distrust what Christian Apologists have to say about either Islam or
Christianity.
As I predicted I didn't win the debate. David Wood clearly beat me and for those of you who
actually saw the video-- there is no disputing it.I fully acknowledge Woods skills as a debater are
far more polished than mine. However I feel that I modestly accomplished my goal and that was
to get people interested in Islam.
Anyways In my first review I didn't bring up too much due to finals week last month, however
this time, since I have spare time, I will try to cover everything in that went down during the
debate..

I. The Historical Record

* David Wood's arguements are pretty much the same as other debates on this topic. He argues
that the alleged death of Jesus is the most certain fact in history. If that's true than certainly many
historians in the 1st century Roman World would've mentioned it. However the fact is that there
were 60 historians in the Roman World, yet only two historians in the entire 1st century mention
the crucifixion of Jesus. These writers are Josephus Flavius and Tacitus. As I said before in
theWas Jesus Crucified section, we can't really trust these sources.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus.
Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from
interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37
C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account.
Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if
his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged crucifixion of
Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote
around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the
authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged
crucifixion of Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his
writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

So much for the "historical" record. As for modern Scholars quoting that Jesus must've died on
the cross that fatefal day in Jerusalem--- they are just repeating what Christians are saying about
the matter. One of the points I brought up during the debate was How do we Know for sure that
Jesus died on the cross? We can't travel back in time with a team of doctors to confirm it.
Therefore the possibility of his survival remains.
* In the Beginning of his presentation, Mr. Wood brings up the subsitution theory. The
subsitution theory was told by Muslims to justify what the Quran says. The verse of the Quran in
regards to Jesus's crucifixion goes like this:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ
therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a
surety they killed him not:- (Quran 4:157 Abdullah Yousef Ali Translation-- Mr. Ali's translation
is the most trusted English translation of the Quran out there).
I document why Muslims should stop using the subsitution theory to vindicate the Quran's
account of the crucifixion here.
The orginal Arabic words found in the Quran do not point out to someone else being crucified
instead of Jesus. Rather the words translated from Arabic are It was made to appear to them. For
hundreds of years Muslims have come up with two theories to support the Quran, One that
Someone else was nailed to the cross and Jesus got away and two Jesus was nailed to the cross,
however he didn't die on the cross, he survived. I argued in this debate that Jesus survived the
crucifixion. I don't see much evidence for the subsitution theory (however more on this later).

II.The Ressurection
* When Paul (the earliest New Testament writer-- he was writing around 50-60 C.E.) was talking
about the ressurection, he was talking about some sort of spiritual ressurection and not a physical
ressurection. Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How
foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.When you sow, you do not plant the
body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.But God gives it a body
as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38
New International Version)
What Paul meant is that God supplies a new body at the resurrection, and that is not the body we
bury. David Wood however said in his first rebuttal that the earliest Christians did not believe in
a non-bodily ressurection-- and this is correct. Rather the earliest Christians believed that we get
a new spiritual body when we are ressurected from the dead. Since Paul believed Jesus was
raised the same way we would be when we are ressurected (See 1 Corinthians 15:13-16,20 & 1
Thessaloians 4:14, etc.) he must also have believed that Jesus did not rise in the body that was
buried ("that which was sown"), but that God gave Jesus a new body ("the body that will come to

be"). And this new "ressurected" body was a spirtual body not a physical body. We find evidence
of this in the following verses:
"the body you sow is not the body that will rise" (1 Corithians 15:37) and "a natural body is
sown, but a spiritual body is raised" (1 Corinthians 15:44)
So Paul probably believed that Jesus was resurrected by being given a new body, not a phyiscal
body like we have, but a spiritual body like the angels have. This makes sense when we look at 1
Corinthians 15:50 where Paul says: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God". It is
thus obvious that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical
body in our familiar sense, but a different, ethereal body, like the same sort of body angels have
(and according to the Gospels, Jesus said we shall be like angels,
cf. Mark 12:25; Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:34-36).1 Peter also argues this quite explicitly: 1
Peter 3:18 declares that Jesus was "put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit".
Jesus also said that at the ressurection we shall be like angels-- Angelized, spiritualized
(Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30 andLuke 20:34-36).
Other scholars agree that Paul and the other early Christian writers believed in a spiritual
ressurection-- and not a physical ressurection:
"Paul.... in a context where he was discussing Jesus's resurrection, [declared] that "flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50) . He believed that the dead are raised
not in a physical body, but "in glory" (verses 42-43) , and with their lowly bodies changed to be
like Jesus's "glorious" one (Philippians 3:21) .... Paul never suggests that Jesus tarried on earth
after his resurrection, and never places any interval between his rising and his being at the right
hand of God (Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Thessalonians 1:10). He seems to have assumed that
the risen Jesus ascended into heaven immediately, with a body of radiance; and so he will
naturally have supposed that the subsequent appearances he lists were made by a descent from
heaven (Wells, 1996, pp. 56-58).
And as the commentators in the Oxford Study Edition of The New English Bible put it:
The Corinthians seem to have balked at the idea of bodily resurrection. Paul agrees that the flesh
has no part in the kingdom (v. 50), arguing that there are many kinds of bodies and that
Christians will receive bodies made not of flesh, but of spirit (Sandmel, et al., 1976, p. 217).
So Ressurection was spiritual-- and not physical in any way. Paul never mentions Jesus having
been resurrected in the flesh, he never mentions any empty tombs, no phyiscal apperances or
anything like that. So its pretty obvious that this was spirtual. David Wood brings
up Romans 8:11, trying to imply that this shows a phyiscal ressurection. But does it? Not really.
Richard Carrier ( A Ph.D. in Greco Roman History) was asked a question about this and here was
his response:

Q: In Romans 8:11 Paul says God "will also give life to your mortal bodies" just as he did to
Jesus, and then he says in 8:23 that we await "the redemption of our body." Don't these passages
clearly indicate the same body that dies is the body that will be raised?
A: Not necessarily. I already challenge this interpretation of both verses in the book (pp. 149-50).
I say a lot there that must be read. Here I will only note three of the facts that I discuss further
there: the "also" in Romans 8:11 does not grammatically correlate with the resurrection of Jesus
(bad translations have falsely given that impression); Paul does not say "our mortal bodies will
be raised" (in fact, he never connects our "mortal bodies" with resurrection at all, not even in
8:23, which is a whole twelve verses away from 8:11 and does not speak of a "mortal" body); the
context of 8:11 appears to be about our current state of grace, not our future resurrection (as in 2
Cor. 4:10), while Paul only gets to the resurrection in later verses; and 8:23 actually says we
expect "the release of our body," without specifying which body he means, or in what way it will
be released. Close examination suggests he more likely meant the release of our "inner man,"
which is our new spiritual body, which we are already growing inside us. (Source)
Unfournately I didn't know that Mr.Wood would be bringing up this verse during the debate (this
is one of the reasons why I lost-- I had no response to this). However it looks like Romans 8:11 is
pointing to something spiritual and not physical.

III. The Crucifixion

Due to the huge amount of material regarding Jesus crucifixion-- I will only briefly cover some
important facts surrrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. This summer I will try to finish up all the
evidence that show the survival of Jesus---- but right now here is some material that throws
doubt on whether Jesus died or not.
Like I said in my first review of this debate, the word ressurected is not written in any of the four
gospels. Rather the word is "risen" which could mean that Jesus rose up, similar to how people
rise from their beds.
In all of the Gospels, nobody sees Jesus "rise" from the dead. They only observe a missing body,
and later are visited. However it should be noted that the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark
does not have the resseurection narrative. It was added some time late in the 2nd century or even
later. Before that, as far as we can tell, Mark ended at verse 16:8. But that means his Gospel
ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus
would be seen in Galilee--nothing is said of how he would be seen. [1]
The Gospels make it clear that Jesus most likely survived his crucifixion. This is not impossible,
as many people in history have survived worse. Jesus clearly said he was going to survive
whatever those Jewish troublemakers were plotting aganist him (Matthew 12:38-40). Death by
crucifixion typically took days, yet Jesus was only on the cross for maybe 3 hours at the most.
Ths could explain Pilates surprise that people were saying Jesus was dead within that short
amount of time (Mark15:44). As Ahmed Deedat said "Pontius Pilate knew from experience that
normally no man would die within 3 hours on the cross". Of course David Wood brings up that

we have to explain how Jesus survived the flogging, scourging and torture he went through. But
all victims of crucifixion went through the same torture before they were put on a cross. All
accounts as we have them show Jesus alive after any torture he suffered, so we do not have to
account for his surviving it--all witnesses already claim that he did.When Jesus was taken down
from the cross, his legs were not broken (John 19:33) another sign that Jesus was alive. David
Wood brings up the Romans doing a death blow to their victims, and in this case the Romans ran
a spear through Jesus heart (See John 19:34). However it should be noted that
the spearing story is probably false. Several church fathers (Ambrose, Augustin, and Chrysostom
in particular) understood this spearing passage symbolically, not literally: the blood represented
the eucharist; the water, baptism. In any case, The account of his being speared is illogical and
late. It appears only in John, the last of the gospels to be written (after 90 AD). There, soldiers
decide not to break his legs because he is dead, and then spear him to make sure he is dead. This
is contradictory and inexplicable behavior.So the spearing story is most likely an invention. The
other two men who were crucified besides Jesus were also alive when taken down from their
crosses so Jesus too must have been alive when taken down from his cross (See Mark 15:32,
Luke 23:39-43 and John 19:32.)
Mary Magdalene herself testifies that Jesus was alive and not ressurected (Mark 16:11). After
Jesus leaves the tomb he is laid in, Jesus is disguised as a gardener (John 20:15). This disgusie is
only nesscary if Jesus was alive and trying to hide from his enemies.
The Gospel writers clearly show that Jesus had a phyiscal body and not a spirtual body. The
annoymous author of Matthew says that Jesus was phyiscal having the women grovel and grab
his feet as he speaks (Matthew 28:9).
When Jesus comes to the upper room he says Shaloom (Peace be upon you). Jesus proves he is
not spirtually ressurected but phyiscally standing right before them, asks the disciples to touch
him and eats a fish to prove it (Luke 24:36-53). The Gospel of Luke says this happened in
Jerusalem, however the Gospels of Mark (the earliest gospel written) and Matthew say this
happened in Galilee.
After the Gospel of Luke (written between 85-90 C.E.), the Gospel of John comes along (written
around 90-110 C.E.) The Gospel of John has Jesus prove he is not only phyiscally solid but he
had his old body by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the
Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the
most grandiose appearances to the Disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark (the
earliest Gospel writer) originally claimed.All of this is good evidence that Jesus survived (again
more on this later)

IV The Unreliablity of the Gospels

Another point brought up during our debate was whether or not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John were reliable or not. Are they biography? Are they history? No, not really. All the
gospels are omniscent-- not first person-- narrators. None identifies himself by name, and there is

no evidence that any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses to the event that the describe. And
of course the Gospels were written in Greek-- while Jesus spoke Aramaic. As for the authorship
of the four gospels, we don't know who wrote the Gospels and the gospels were written based on
unreliable oral traditions. The following quotes from scholars testify to this:
The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) give the following information on their authorship:
* Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation; probably a
resident of Antioch in Syria.
* Mark: Notes confusion in the traditional identification of the author but offers no hypothesis.
* Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle
Paul.
* John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably
residents of Ephesus.
As for the dates of the Gospels:
Kee, Young, and Froelich (1965, p. 472): Mark (70), Matthew (85-100), Luke (85-100), John
(90-110)
Burton L. Mack (1995) : Matthew (late 80s) (p. 161). Luke (around 120) (p. 167), John (90s)
(1995, p. 176).
Editors of The New English Bible (Sandmel, et al. 1976): Mark (around 70); Matthew (about
90); Luke (about 90); John ("Shortly before the end of the First Century").
As for the Gospels containing fictional/unrelaible forms the following scholars tesifty to this
fact:
This literature [the Gospels] was oral before it was written and began with the memories of
those who knew Jesus personally. Their memories and teachings were passed on as oral
tradition for some forty years or so before achieving written form for the first time in a selfconscious literary work, so far as we know, in the Gospel of Mark, within a few years of 70 A.D.
But oral tradition is by definition unstable, notoriously open to mythical, legendary, and fictional
embellishment. We know that by the forties of the first century traditions already existed which
we would now label orthodox and traditions coming to be recognized as heretical--teachings
about what Jesus said and meant that even then were being called (though in a different
vocabulary) "fictional" (Helms, 1988, p. 12; emphasis added).
Each of the four canonical Gospels is religious proclamation in the form of a largely fictional
narrative. Christians have never been reluctant to write fiction about Jesus, and we must
remember that our four canonical Gospels are only the cream of a large and varied literature. We
still possess, in whole or in part, such works as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the
Gospel of Philip, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and such
anonymous gospels as those according to the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Ebionites, and so on.

Jesus is the subject of a large--in fact, still growing--body of literature, often unorthodox or pure
fantasy, cast in the form of fictional narrative and discourse (Helms, 1988, pp. 11-12).
[A]ll the death scenes were constructed to show Jesus dying the model death and so "in
fulfillment" of Scripture.... [T]he scenes have a religious and moral purpose disguised as a
historical one; we are, with these scenes, in the literary realm known as fiction, in which
narratives exist less to describe the past than to affect the present. In De Quincy's phrase, "the
Gospels are not so much literature of knowledge as literature of power" (Helms, 1988, pp. 1516).
Soon I will write an article on this, and why I believe the Gospels are not trust worthy
information about the life of Jesus.

V. Pagan Influneces
Another topic which was brought up during the debate was Pagan influences on Christianity and
allegedly on Islam. Briefly touching on Christianity, there were at least three Pre-Christian Gods
who were crucified and then ressurected. The first was the the Thracian god Zalmoxis (also
called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis), who is described in the mid-5th-century B.C.E. by Herodotus
(4.94-96), and also mentioned in Plato's Charmides (156d-158b) in the early-4th-century B.C.E.
According to the hostile account of Greek informants, Zalmoxis buried himself alive, telling his
followers he would be resurrected in three years, but he merely resided in a hidden dwelling all
that time. The second was Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion,
resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E.
[2]. So the story of a God dying and rising is not unique, its been done before. Mr.Wood tires to
say that Inanna was hung on a hook, therefore it is not crucifixion. However that doesn't mean
anything, rather the point is that story is very similar to the Jesus story told in Christianity.
As for any alleged Pagan influecnes on Islam, Islam completely rejects Paganism. Anyone who
knows anything about Islam will know that the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) both reject idolary and pagan practices. The following Quranic verse and hadith show just
that:
Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit
you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things." (Quran 5:76)
Narrated Abdullah: When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360
idols around the Ka'ba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick he had in his hand and was
saying, "Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear. (Bukhari Volume
5, Book 59, Number 583)

The charge of Muslims "worshipping" the black stone is a common one, and has already been
answered by Shabir Ally. Shabir says:
Muslims do not worship the black stone. They regard the stone as a created thing. The most
fundamental principle of Islam is that nothing or no one is to be worshipped except Allah, the
one true God.
Muslims who can afford the journey are required once in their lifetime to visit the House of
Worship in Makkah. This was the first house built for the worship of the one true God. It was
constructed by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them. The black stone was brought
to them from heaven by the angel Gabriel to function as a corner stone. It was thus affixed in one
corner.
Because Muslims kiss that stone, some observers hastily conclude that Muslims worship it. A
kiss, however, is not an act of worship unless it is accompanied by an intention to worship. If you
kiss your child, for instance, that does not mean you worship your child.
Some may find it strange that Muslims should treat a stone with respect. But this is not just any
old stone. It is an item out of paradise.
The act of fixing a stone to mark a place of worship is as old as history. In the Bible we are told
that Jacob, on whom be peace, had fixed a stone at a place where he saw a vision. He poured oil
on it and called it Bethel meaning 'house of God' (see Genesis 28:18). He did this again upon
God's instruction (see Genesis 35:1, 14, 15). No one should understand from this that God
instructed Jacob to worship the stone. (Shabir Ally, Common Questions People Ask About Islam,
p. 46)
As for Abraham and Ishmael going to Arabia and doing certian rites and such, the topic is too big
to cover here, in the future I will write an article about the evidence that Ishmael and his mother
went to Arabia, but there is tons of evidence that Arabs and Jews are related (*) (*) (*) (*).

CONCLUSIONS
I tried to cover everything I could here. Of course there is much more to cover and in the future I
will try to add more on this, but I think I covered everything that needs to be covered. I just want
to say it was a pleasure knowing both David Wood and Nabeel Queshi last month, I certianly feel
I know them better now. We all went out for dinner afterwards-- which I thought was nice. One
person wouldn't stop following me around-- which I thought was odd and when we were out all
we discussed was polemics aganist the Quran-- which I also thought was very odd ( I wanted to
discuss the new Wolverine movie or politics, etc, but whatever floats Mr. Wood and Mr.
Qureshi's boat.) But in any case I consider both David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi friends-- and
our debates about our faiths has only just begun. Its exiciting, indeed, two men of one faith and

me of another faith-- doing our best to prove why our religions is the religion. Very exicting
indeed.
So this was a very nice experience for me, and although I didn't win the debate-- at least now I
am acknowledged as a Muslim Apologist and at least now I got my name out there.
Later this year me and Nabeel will be debating Who Was Jesus-- another important topic for both
Muslims and Christians so stay tuned.
Now, I feel I ready for anything they can throw at me.
Notes:
[1] (New International Version Archarelogical Study Bible pg. 1661
[2] Samuel Noah Kramer, "The First Tale of Resurrection," History Begins at Sumer: ThirtyNine Firsts in Man's Recorded History, 3rd ed. (1981): pp. 154-67.

Bibliography:
Archareological Study Bible: An illustrated walk through Biblical history and culture, New
International Version, Zondervan Corporation Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 2005.
Helms, R. (1988), Gospel Fictions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Kee, H.C., Young, F.W., and Froelich, K. (1965), Understanding the New Testament, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mack, B.L. (1993), The Lost Gospel. San Francisco: Harper.
_____. (1995), Who Wrote the New Testament? San Francisco: Harper.
Metzger, B.M. and Coogan, M.D., eds. (1993), The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sandmel, S. et al., eds. (1976), The New English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G.A. (1996), The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court.
_____. (1989), Who Was Jesus? La Salle, IL: Open Court.