On the 9th of July, Paul Bilal Williams of the Muslim Debate Initiative held a (historic) debate with the Reverend Chris Green, vice-principle of Oak Hill Christian college. The topic of discussion centered on Jesus, just who was he? Was he God? Was he God incarnate? And did he come to die for the sins of mankind? Or was he simply a Muslim prophet, a prophet who taught about monotheism, and salvation that did not necessitate his death and resurrection.
In my view, the debate rested on 2 key points:
1-聽聽聽 The historicity and reliability of John鈥檚 Gospel
2-聽聽聽 The death of Jesus
Starting with the first point, throughout Green鈥檚 presentation, he would use references from the Gospel of John, to which Paul responded back to by showing the scholarly (Christian included) evidence that the Gospel of John is not viewed as an authentic historical account of Jesus鈥 life. Rather, the Gospel of John is a highly interpretive account by the author in question, who placed his own theological formed beliefs on Jesus, so the prologue of John, the I AM sayings, and many other sayings regarding Jesus were not actual statements uttered by Jesus. But rather were the interpretive theological beliefs of John, who placed such sayings onto Jesus in a way to deify Jesus and make him into a divine figure.
Reverend Green never disputed this argument by Paul, rather he stated that there were scholars who disputed this view, though he didn鈥檛 name any, and ironically a scholar he did name, Richard Baukham, happened to agree with Paul鈥檚 position!
Paul didn鈥檛 merely rely on name-dropping scholars, but demonstrated the argument to the audience by contrasting John with the other three Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke). Paul showed how many of the major sayings in John, which Green relied on to prove Jesus鈥 divinity, do not exist in the earlier Gospels, and this obviously poses a lot of problems. If Jesus actually made the statements we find in the Gospel of John, then why do all other 3 earlier Gospels have them missing? Green never really came up with any meaningful response to this problem.
More to this point, Paul demonstrated how the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, shows a very human Jesus, a Jesus that is not all knowing, a Jesus that distinguishes himself from God, and a Jesus who teaches the people to follow the commandments to be saved by God.
The second point in which Paul caught Green on was concerning Jesus鈥 death, Paul turned the books on Green, by quoting from the writings of Paul, which Green originally used. Paul showed how the writings of the Apostle Paul taught that God is IMMORTAL, and yet as we all know Jesus was not immortal as he died. Paul made it very simple for everybody, Immortal means one does not die, Jesus died, and therefore he is not immortal, very simple and logical. The response from the Christian side was beyond weak and sadly turned into the same routine we have always seen, which is trying to twist and turn, and trying to change the meanings of something simple, and to make the text say something it doesn鈥檛, so immortal doesn鈥檛 really mean immortal, or Jesus dying isn鈥檛 really dying etc. Basically 1 doesn鈥檛 mean 1, and 1 plus 1 doesn鈥檛 equal 2, and a square isn鈥檛 really a square etc.
Obviously many other points were raised, but for me personally, these main 2 points sealed the deal, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that Jesus was no God as our evangelical friends try to assert.
Like this:
Like Loading...