My Review of last nights debate at SOAS
Posted: December 10, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams 5 Comments »MDI speaker Sami Zaatari made a joint presentation with Christian politician Alan Craig on what members of the Muslim/Christian communities should know about the other’s beliefs at the University of London, SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) yesterday evening.
In my review I want to focus on three arguments put forward by Alan Craig last night.
In the context of an impassioned presentation which was really his own story about how he became a Christian and how central Jesus is in his life, he argued the following:
1) That “only through Jesus sacrificial death on the cross can humanity find forgiveness for all its sins”. This is the standard Christian position. But, oddly, this is not the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
During the Q&A I read Mark 1 to Craig:
‘And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.’
I pointed out that this ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ took place before Jesus’ ministry had even begun and there is the clear implication that those who confessed their sins did receive forgiveness by God.
Craig’s answer to me was that God was outside time, so Jesus’ death on the cross had a timeless effect on the past, present and future forgiveness of sins, so even those who came before Jesus received forgiveness through the cross. But this somewhat extravagant metaphysical claim has some unacceptable consequences.
John the baptist in his ministry and Jesus in his ministry never taught that forgiveness of sins was conditional on the latter dying on the cross for them. Why this curious omission? Consider the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples:
‘This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us today the food we need
and forgive us our sins,
as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
And don’t let us yield to temptation,
but rescue us from the evil one.
If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.’
Matthew 5: 9-14
So according to Craig, this prayer is quite misleading, for this simple (and typically Jewish) petition to God for forgiveness is not going to be answered in those terms, but will be rerouted via Jesus’ sacrificial death to become effective! But why was Jesus so coy about the real mechanism for the forgiveness of sins? Is Craig’s hypothesis at all plausible? Craig will need to ponder this question further.
2) He asserted that the whole Bible is inspired by God and is “perfect”. During the Q & A he seemed to brush off as a minor irrelevance criticism from an audience member that as Christians in the early church and even today are still disunited about which books constitute the Bible, how can he speak of a perfect and inspired book? To add to this significant point I added my own: The Bible in places explicitly denies that it is the Word of God. I cited Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (7:12)
‘To the rest I say this I, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.’
Craig’s response to this was to claim that for Christians Jesus himself was the ‘Word of God’. Craig thereby implicitly conceded my point that not all of the Bible can be claimed to be the Word of God. There are other passages I could have cited to make the same point, and contrary to Christian apologetics, the Bible as such nowhere claims to be the Word of God or even inspired (compare the Qur’anic claim concerning its own origin).
3) Craig asserted at the beginning of his presentation that in Jesus of Nazareth,
“all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”
(citing the deutero-Pauline Letter to the Colossians, 1:19).
Yet during Q & A when Craig was reminded that Jesus was ignorant of certain facts such as the date of his return (information known only to God – see Mark 13:32) Craig asserted that Jesus as the incarnate deity had “imperfect knowledge” of future events. So which is it to be? Is Craig going to simultaneously assert that Jesus was God in his fullness and yet was God with reduced powers and attributes, such that God was ignorant of certain facts and could even die (despite the clear scriptural teaching that God is immortal, eternal)? Clearly there is much muddled thinking here.
Craig told us that as a businessman he was extremely successful, traveling the world on Concorde and employing an army of factory workers. This was all very impressive. But, I am sad to say, his grasp of the Bible and Christian theology struck this reviewer at least as superficial and muddled. Sami Zaatari, in contrast, had a good grasp of the Bible and the Quran and left the impression that Islam is far more credible as a way of salvation and a sure path to God.
—————————————————————————————————
Yesterday, a Muslim friend emailed me about the Christian claim he so often hears that the Bible is ‘the word of God’. I replied:
the usual Christian argument is to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 as a defence of the Bible’s own claim to be the Word of God. But there are 3 problems with this:
i) if you read this verse in its context the author is clearly referring to the Old Testament not the New Testament
ii) then as now there are different canons of scripture (the list of books that make up the Bible). The diaspora Jews at the time of Paul used a longer Greek translation but the Palestinian Jews used a shorter version which omitted key books. Which is the real Bible?
iii) nearly all NT scholars believe that 2 Timothy is a forgery, ie the letter claims to be by Paul but is really by someone else pretending to be by him. If this is correct, then Christians are putting their trust in the testimony of a forged book to support their truth claims about the Bible!
hope this helps…




Please post the link to the Youtube video, as soon it is available. I would like to watch the debate.
will do..
to my knowledge jesus’ flesh was not a sacrifice it was MURDERED. jesus was murdered. what god gave to the world was jesus’ murdered flesh and blood and the only thing he did to himself was turn himself from himself even though he would be omnipresent and be at where ever he turned away from himself. did the christian ever say that the holy ghost god and the father god as a TEAM applied thier wrath unto the son? what does it mean jesus’ sacrifice is eternal? is jesus being sacrificed right now? is he feeling his fathers abandonment right now? God in christian is simply hiding in flesh and then he transports himself to hell and then back to heaven, he doesn’t even DIE.this is suppose to be awesome in his eyes?
“Craig’s answer to me was that God was outside time, so Jesus’ death on the cross had a timeless effect on the past, present and future forgiveness of sins, so even those who came before Jesus received forgiveness through the cross. ”
so god was remember his cosmic child abuse i.e abdoning the son when THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of blood /cross ect? this would mean that all the ppl in the passage of mark were DECEIVED into thinking something else because not EVEN A HINT /ingredient was given to the people by the man god. he didn’t even hint to them about the fathers intentions and why the father WANTS to apply VIOLENCE unto the son before he forgives.
What were the disciples’ response to Jesus prediction of his
crucifixion? They have no clue. They argue against him. They deny
that such a terrible thing would ever happen. This is strong evidence that
when Jesus taught his disciples the gospel, there was no mention of
him dying. Otherwise, why would they be so taken off guard when Jesus
brings it up on the outskirts of Jerusalem?
imagine all the deciples switched to salvation VERSION 2 , if they were shocked to hear about 1 ingredient of salvation version 2 then what about the people whom they healed and asked to repent?
the truth is, the books of mark were penned by more than 1 authour
final post
Second, this question was raised in a previous thread: why does it appear that, in both accounts, Jesus didn’t know whether or not the tree had any figs on it, if indeed, he was omniscient God in human flesh? Mark states that Jesus “went to find out if it had any fruit,” a clear indication that he did not know whether or not it had fruit. Matthew, slightly different and de-emphasizing Jesus’ intent to find out if it had any fruit stated “he went up to it and found nothing on it.” (Does this indicate a greater emphasis on his divinity and thus, supposed foreknowledge?) However, the other question is why would Jesus need to find out if it had any fruit if, as Mark states, “it was not the seasonfor figs.” That makes little sense, and you’d think, as much as Jesus spoke about the harvest, sowing seeds, etc., he’d be aware of the seasonality of a fig tree.
Nevertheless, this also leads to the next point, which does concern the “perfect morality” of Jesus. He reaches the tree, finds no figs (no surprise there!) and curses it. If this were anyone but Jesus, one’s natural response to this sort of scenario (where a person curses a tree for not bearing fruit during the season when it’s not supposed to) would be “WTF!” So why does Jesus feel the need to curse a tree for no good reason? It makes no sense, and frankly causes him to look like an angry teenager with the inability to control his temper.
Why does matthew omit the phare “for it was not the season for figs” ?
Why did he also speed up the miracle?
in matthew, the tree withers immediately
the deciples say, “the tree which you cursed has WITHERED AT ONCE”
in mark, the deciples pass the tree and peter says, ” look, the tree you cursed has withered away to its root”
WHEN did peter say this, 1 DAY after jesus curses the tree. jesus’ CURSE ,according to mark, WAS ONLY heard , the deciples DID NOT SEE THE AFFECTS of the curse.
this is how the deceptive christia n called mark was playing around with marks version .
[...] 1My Review of last nights debate at SOAS « Muslim Debate Initiative SUBMIT [...]