Acts17apologetics find the horned one; Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" about Historical Figures Destroy His Credibility (PvM 9)"

Dhul Qarnayn's story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8. He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys.

This was Cyrus the Great as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45. Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his "being established in the land" to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementioned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power.

Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus. In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn. The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it.

It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III. The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk. The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.

This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. As to the notion of parental resemblance, it is similar to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a. The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions 

"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that". 

To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge 

"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".

The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet 

25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".

Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;

- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.

- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?

- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.

Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with

"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".

The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels;

- it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures

- it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness

As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head. Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on.

This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf. Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.

Apostate prophet skeptic of Muslim sources; Islamic sources retrospectively written?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

Hadith books, are based upon oral tradition and oral tradition in any culture, precedes the writing of that tradition. All history is a 'written' attestation to an ORAL tradition, meaning written word comes AFTER THE FACT. Just because pre-Islamic history became written down after a certain time period does not predicate it never existed. History did not fail to exist, because it was not written down. Many times the reporters themselves admitted that in the transmission process, they paid little regard to truth and falsehood.

That is why we find reports about the prophet ranging from overly flattering to slanderous.

In both cases, Muslims do not just accept a report or reject it at face value, but scrutinize it through various meticulous angles so as to arrive to a decent level of certainty. The ahadith, although a secondary source of religious guidance, went through an authentication process that the major scriptures of Christianity and Judaism cannot even hope for, let alone their secondary sources. That authentication process of the ahadith is still open even today, with ahadith seen in the past as undisputed but now downgraded to a lower level of certainty. No writing in the history of mankind received a divine pledge of protection other than the Quran. Anything else is open to human error.

An important thing to be kept in mind, as already said, many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. When the selecting process was finished, the discarded reports werent physically destroyed and erased, but were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies.

That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason.

As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.

Apostate prophet stuck on verse 9:30; Allah curses people in the Quran?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers like prophets, angels, believers, jinn, satan and more, even sometimes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose, all this all the while actively interracting with the reader and or/audience, making it sometimes directly part of the flow of the discourse. In all cases it is word for word the speech of God, whoever it quotes or commands to proclaim/qul. When Allah speaks through the prophet starting with qul, the words spoken afterwards do not become the words of the speaker, for example

39:10"Qul (Say/Proclaim/Declare/State/Mention), “O My servants who have believed, fear your Lord. For those who do good in this world is good, and the earth of Allah is spacious. Indeed, the patient will be given their reward without account."

This is just one of the many aspects of what makes it a literary masterpiece on such a level that the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call it magic and sorcery.

When it commands the prophet to be the speaker the Quran sometimes begins with qul/say. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say". At other places the prophet is to relate the revelation on God's behalf without starting with the qul/say formula. Only the style indicates that the speaker at a place is not Allah but indirectly His messenger or some other character who are either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance.

 In the HB God says to Moses

Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you",

ie I will teach you how to worship Me. or in the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.

The same principle is followed when determining at other places who the speaker is when using certain idiomatic expressions like "may Allah" or "By God" see 4:65,9:30,16:56,63,34:3,63:4 "By your life" 15:72 "alhamdulilla/praise God" 39:29. It is to be noted there is no "may" in 9:30,63:4 and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing happenning. Here the Quran is quoting what the indignated expression of a believer should be, when confronted to groups who insist on such deviation despite being warned and admonished. For a believer to be offended by sin, to the point of hating the obdurate people who insist on it, is not something misplaced. It is rather expected. God endows those willing to walk the straight path with increased sharpness of spiritual insight. Faith and righteousness become the dearest of values to them while unbelief and transgression become hated 49:7-8.

The prophet Ibrahim, having received a clear discernment of right and wrong even felt physically sick at the sight of falsehood 37:89. The prophet Yusuf, because of that faculty was able to extricate himself from a situation that would have otherwise compromised his chastity 12:22-4. Love of Truth and aversion towards everything false and sinful is the natural outcome of the acceptance of the straight path. One becomes in a heightened state of spiritual awareness, constantly longing to be increased in divine knowledge and wisdom. IT is however important to keep in view that the Quran here is not speaking of hatred towards the sinful person itself. There are countless verses encouraging rectitude and compassion indiscriminately even towards one's enemies, and regardless of the person's religion or lack thereof. Religious hatred is hatred for evil and evil deeds. This again, demonstrates the supreme pragmatism of the Quran; infatuated love and destructive hatred completely miss the mark. One hates for the sake of God and loves for the sake of God.

One hates the evil deed because it harms the sinner, just as one loves the good deed because it brings one closer to guidance. The prophet encapsulated that notion when  he spoke of a category of people whom the prophets and martyrs themselves will envy on the day of resurrection 

"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".

The HB surely echoes the theme of religious hatred although it amalgamates hatred towards the individual itself as reflected in David's

Psalms119:104-5,139:21-22"From Your precepts I shall gain understanding; therefore, I hate all ways of falsehood. Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path...Did I not hate Your enemies, O Lord? With those who rise up against You, I quarrel. I hate them with utmost hatred; they have become my enemies"

as well as Solomon's Proverbs2:7-10,13:5. Again in 2Sam22, the prophet David speaks of God's guidance as the lamp by which one walks in darkness, levelling the obstacles along the path, making every step firm, a rock, forteress and shield of salvation. In his later days, he would state

Ps19:9"the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes".

Apostate prophet seeks evidence; Jews said Ezra is son of God?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

In 9:30 the Quran accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra. It is important here to note that a statement that starts with "the people said" without being followed by a precise designation of the individuals concerned inside the group is a literary feature of Arabic usage of sentences; its aim is to point to a prevailing tendancy among a larger group. It is the equivalent to "Most people said". This is all the more true when the single feminine form is used, as in this case.

So in 9:30, it does not mean that all the Jews said this, but it does bring the attention to a significant group amongst them which happened to say it. The same verbal form is used in 5:64-66 for the Jews, and again because in the introductory statement "the Jews said" there was no precise designation of the guilty individuals, the passage ends by making a distinction between the sinners and the righteous, thus showing that although both belong to the same larger group, not all of them are concerned with the accusation levelled against their comunity.

Further corroboration can be seen in the prophetic sayings, where a glimpse of what shall occur on the day of judgement is given, when people are seperated into different groups. The first group, those who consciously worshipped anything other than Allah are sent to hellfire. Then 2 groups are made from among the worshippers of Allah; the righteous and the sinners. In both groups there will be Muslims and non muslims, such as Jews and Christians. The Quran repeatedly says, among the people of the book, both righteous and sinners will be rewarded accordingly in the hereafter. Finally, a party will be brought forth from those who worshipped Allah among the people of the book. They will be those whom the Quran accuses of transgression in regards to Ezra and Jesus

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie...Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars..." 

The Quran is here making a historical observation pertaining to the beliefs of the Arabian peninsula. It is already well-documented that not all Jews had the same beliefs. Even within the HB and NT, one finds competing theologies such as the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection, while it is a pillar of the orthodox Jewish belief. Paul observes that some Jews in his lifetime worshiped angels Col2:18. There were Jews and gentiles among the proto-christian sect that deified Jesus. That is besides the numerous idolatrous practices Jews have done since the times of Moses, and recorded in the HB.

Ezra was believed to have ascended up to heaven without dying by certain Jews, just as Christians argued Jesus ascended to heaven. In the Jewish apocalypse 2 Esdras 14 God tells him that 

"You will be taken from among human beings, and you will associate from now on with my son and with those who are like you until the times are finished". 

There is nothing far-fetched in the assertion of these Arabian Jews, their over exaltation of Ezra especially in the context of the religious competition that existed between Christianity and Judaism in the Arabian peninsula. The Quran often references this, and the following verse is a similar style to the one in question

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".

It was in such religious prejudice that the Jews and Christians would even go as far as condemning their opponents on matters that had no religious basis from the book they shared. 9:30 is an example of the religious prejudices reaching extremes, but in this case, it caused them to utter words of unbelief regarding their own religious figures. The next verse states

9:31"They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him)".

There is an important omission in the verse. Although both Jews and Christians have raised their religious figures as God's sons, and both have set their scholars and monks as God's partners in the sense that they follow their authority blindly even if it innovates and contradicts what was revealed to them, yet in contrast to Ezra only Jesus is mentionned as having been raised to a divine status. And this is to differentiate between the Christians who willingly did so, whereas with the Jews, their type of idolatry in regards to Ezra was indirect, through descriptions overstepping the limits of acceptable monotheistic belief. There is a reason why that transgression is only mentionned once, in contrast to the deification of Jesus which is repeatedly condemned throughout the Quran. The hadith itself states that they used to worship Allah, although they will be convicted of worshipping Ezra 

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah..." 

These Jews were pointed and publicly exposed for their transgression. That is why when they will be singled out from among other Jews on the day of resurrection, as per the hadith quoted earlier, then questionned as to who they used to worship, they will immidiately know that this questionning will be related to the accusation made against them in their lifetime, and will thus convict their own selves, admitting to their worship of Ezra.

An important Quranic principle is that those who associate with Allah's essence and authority, whether deities, saints or personalities, religious leaders or their own selves by following ways incited by their own desires 9:31,6:136-9,25:43,36:60,42:21,45:23 do so many times unknowingly 

23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?" 

The attribution of intrinsic powers and authority to any of those entities, their leaders, their own selves, or Mary who in addition is included in prayer rituals, even without naming any of them "gods" is equal to taking them as gods besides Allah. 

This appelation, Ezra's sonship to God, implies that someone might be compared in essence to God, to whom there is no likeness in the heavens and the earth, the Supreme above all things 3:83,19:88-95,13:15,22:18. This title is so much honor no one deserves, not the greatest prophets or angels, not anything of His creation. The greatest of the greatest creations, although honored and drawn near to Allah, are only fit to be called His slaves

19:93,21:26"And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants".

Another important point is that 9:30 does not necessarly state that what they uttered concerning Ezra and Jesus has scriptural basis. This means that although it might be the case, as in Jesus' case who is referred to with the title son of man and son of God in the NT, it isnt necessarly so as in Ezra's case.

 There are other such instances where the Quran exposes some false utterances of the Jews and challenges them to bring the scriptural basis 2:94,2:111,3:75. Elsewhere it denounces their misinterpretations aimed at satisfying their own interests, either by advancing certain concepts contrary to their scriptures' intent or hiding certain realities fully present in them 3:71,78,98-99.
The point of the verse is that they were not interested in proclaiming the truth, they were interested in their partisanship, even at the expense of the truth. Serving God, as the above verse states, is not in their equation.

Islam critiqued understands the imagery; humans are worthless without spirituality?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Snakes, Mice and Jews"

The comparison of the spiritually dead to animals, and even lower in value, as inert and senseless as a stone 2:74, is very apt in that an animal such as sheep or cattle, despite being of very weak intellect can still properly process what it hears (voice of the herdsman) or sees (location of the herdsman and the rest of the flock) in order to find guidance.

The spiritually dead cannot make use of any of his senses and so is unable to properly process the perceived information to find guidance and rise to ultimate success. A sheep becomes more apt in finding its correct direction and thus thriving through its life. Dumbness (muteness) illustrates how the inability to listen leads to lack of interest, which would naturally be expressed through further verbal inquiry, reflexion, exchanges etc.

2:18"Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back"  

25:44"They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path".

As to the hadith about Jews changed into rats, besides the report itself describing the incredulity of those that heard it reported on behalf of the prophet by only one person, Abu Hurayra, it also shows the prophet himself giving a loose personal opinion based on observation, not a statement of fact

"Muslim2997 a: Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording."

The same uncertainty is found in another similar hadith

"Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called him out at the third time saying: O man of the desert, verily Allah cursed or showed wrath to a tribe of Bani Isra'il and distorted them to beasts which move on the earth. I do not know, perhaps this (lizard) may be one of them. So I do not eat it, nor do I prohibit the eating of it".

This observation by the prophet could have been directly or indirectly influenced by a belief floating among the Arabs, more particularly the Banu Salim who forbade themselves to eat the flesh of lizards, asserting that it was a metamorphosed Jew. Clearly these ahadith cannot be taken as related to the Quran passages above or as a basis to interpret them. The hadiths are worded as potentially erroneous subjective suppositions concerning a tribe of bani Israel contemporaneous with the prophet, and the Quran relates a historical incident far preceding the prophet.

Finally, even if the Quran statement of "Be despised apes" is taken as a literal transformation, the Quran says only the transgressors among them were inflicted with that punishment and a prophetic tradition suggests they did not transmit their condition, dying out in their state (hadith scholars say after 3 days)

"Mention was made before him about monkeys, and Mis'ar (one of the narrators) said: I think that (the narrator) also (made a mention) of the swine, which had suffered metamorphosis. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily, Allah did not cause the race of those which suffered metamorphosis to grow or they were not survived by young ones. Monkeys and swine had been in existence even before (the metamorphosis of the human beings)".

So both the Quran and hadith speak of a punishment that was inflicted once, in one location, directed at the transgressors in the community. The incident cannot be used to paint Islam as diabolizing the Jews as a whole. Further, both the Quran and ahadith repeatedly distinguish between the righteous among the people of the book and the sinners deserving of condemnation. Whether mention of that shameful event is found in rabbinic literature or not is irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the story. Is oral Jewish tradition and the Talmud expected to faithfully preserve every incident in the life of each Jewish community of the diaspora prior to the finalization of its text? Did the incident even occur before its composition? Is the holocaust mentioned in the Talmud?

Islam critiqued disagrees with divine speeches; denigrating disbelievers?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Snakes, Mice and Jews"

The Quran refers with very degrading terms, not only to non-Muslims, but also Muslims whenever they neglect their spiritual potential and steep to the level of animals. This is because the value of a human being in God's eyes, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or social class, rests only in his God-consciousness 49:13. Stripped of that quality, a human being is worthless. This is a major Quranic theme. When all has been created with an inner truth, for a higher purpose and for an appointed term in a universe whose phenomena all testify to a higher reality 30:8,14:19,10:3-6 by Allah who is Truth in essence 22:6,62 it necessitates that everything false or based on falsehood, ie devoid of its higher purpose ultimately perishes. That reality many times manifested in this very world with the uprooting of transgressing nations altogether.

The Jews for instance when they neglect the Torah which they claim to uphold and practice 62:5, they are compared to donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents. Donkeys merely feel the burden. It is not different for them to carry rocks and wood or books containing the most precise secrets of Creation and the most fruitful lessons for a better life, as the Quran often describes the previous revelations.

The Hebrew Bible itself, quoting the prophet Isaiah, reduces them to lower than donkeys in the times when the nation had almost reached total spiritual collapse Isa1:3 and Malachi echoes how lowly and contemptible they were made to be in the eyes of the whole world for having forsaken the Torah Malachi2:8-9.

To Hosea they are a "useless ustensil" as they lost the divine immunity that was granted to them as long as they remained faithful to the covenant. HE also calls them wandering wild donkeys in foreign land, in search of alliances with the pagans Hos8:8-9. Their leaders and elders are blind and slumbering, compared to dumb dogs for their failure to warn and avert spiritual disaster despite the presence of prophets among them Isa56:10.

The unrighteous foreigners that persecuted the Jews are spoken of in similar debasing terms and with such aversion that they should not be touched Isa52:1,11,Ps94:8. All these parallels humans/animals have one common denominator, the loss of all morality and spirituality. In reference to such loss, God in Ps32:9 warns David not to become

"like a mule that does not discern; whose mouth must be held with bit and bridle, so that when he is being groomed, he does not come near you".

To avoid that outcome, David is to be careful to follow God's guidance

Ps32:8"I will enlighten you and instruct you which way [to go]; I will wink My eye to you".

The Quran uses such metaphors for all people, not only the Jews, who blindly turn away and reject divine guidance

7:175,179,8:22,25:44,74:49-51"Then, why do they turn away from the reminder? As if they were frightened wild donkeys, Fleeting from lions".

Again, the metaphor applies to those who behave in this life without spiritual awareness and God-consciousness

47:12"and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".

The idolaters, because of their sacraligious practices are najis/ritually impure 9:28 just as in Judaism those of "uncirumcised flesh or hearts" shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a ritualy pure entity, whether a human or else, such as the Temple. As a side note, recently two copies of inscriptions prohibiting the entry of nonbelievers to the Temple have been found on Temple Mount, which Josephus wrote about. These inscriptions were on the dividing wall that surrounded the Second Temple, which prevented non-Jews from accessing the interior of the Temple courtyard. The "warning" stone, which is at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, warns non-Jews of the perils of entering the sacred Temple.

In the HB and throughout the books of the Prophets, and down to the book of "writings", non-Jewish ways are paralleled with the images of lewdness, harlotry, foolishness, lurking around to lure the weak of heart.

As a side note, it is interesting to note that this evil path is symbolized in the HB by a woman, ensnaring the man, thus perpetrating the mysoginistic representation of females, going back to the convoluted and corrupted story of creation. This symbolizm is well depicted in Prov7 or Ecc7:26 where apostasy, sinfulness are personified by the female sex, and the way it lures man to her

"And i find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, her hands are bonds; whoever is good in God's sight will escape from her, and a sinner will be taken by her".

This is because even though it is hard enough to find a truly righteous man, it is even moreso difficult in the case of women

Ecc7:28"While i was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all".

Jesus in the NT makes use of such metaphors as well when he compares the spiritually unclean to dogs and swine Matt7:6. The main thing distinguishing man from animals is his spirituality and sense of morality.

This aptitude is what raised him to be God's vicegerent on earth, a honored creature excelling most of God's creation 14:32-33,17:70. So when anyone corrupts and forsakes that aspect of his being, and in addition rejects Divine guidance only to follow his low desires then he loses that distinction. He becomes the lowest of the lows although having been made in such a mold that could raise him up to moral and spiritual heights, with the highest rank being that of a prophet of God. That reality is captured through four oaths in 95:1-5.

The oath taken by the 2 of the choicest and noblest fruits, the fig and the olive, followed by an oath by the 2 locations most blessed in terms of manifestation of prophecy and revelation, mount Sinai and Mecca, serve as argument to the positive potential of the human being. Like the above mentioned fruits, he may become among the most select by rising spiritually, the highest humans in terms of spiritual nobility being the prophets, hence the oaths taken by 2 locations associated with 2 of the most eminent of them, Moses and Muhammad.

Islam critiqued rejects semitic metaphors; people becoming apes?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Snakes, Mice and Jews"

The verse in question speaks of a special kind of transgression. The sabbath violation is one of the sins they have been most persistent and constant in committing throughout their history, despite it being one of the few ordinances so important in God's eyes when it was first ordained upon them that transgressing it was punishable by death.

This is revealing of their mentality, disregard and disrespect to God which the Quran exposed when it revealed what was truly in their hearts while they were made to swear into the covenant 2:93. They would transgress the Sabbath even in such critical times as when they had just finished rebuilding the Temple that had been destroyed precisely for their misbehavior Neh13:15-22. That stain particularly in regards to te Sabbath is so great on them, whether in their own books or the Quran, that when Allah speaks of those on whom that ordinance came, ie the Israelites, it calls them

"those who differed about it".

It is as if no sooner was it ordained that they already resisted its application. Allah tells those sabbath breakers to

"Be despised apes".

Many indicators, both linguistic and textual as attested by some of the earliest authorities even among the taabiun, point to it being a metaphor on how lowly these transgressors among them were made to be in God's eyes, as well as to the rest of the righteous community and those who kept their commandments 7:159,163-166.

The tafsir scholar Mujahid, who had studied under Ali ibn Abi Talib and is said to have reviewed his tafsir 10s of times under ibn Abbas, explicitly ascribed to this view. He compared the simile to that made elsewhere in the Quran regarding the spiritually barren, who carry the divine scriptures like donkeys carrying a load of which they dont know the value. The textual indicators to it being a metaphor are seen from the next verse, 2:66 verse were it says to those to whom it was said to "Be despised apes", that they have been made an example to their community and posterity. How were these people made into an example to posterity? Physically transforming them into apes would have been witnessed by one generation at most. It would have had no effect on posterity as the verse says.

Today and as reported in the HB, any Jew would recognize how many of their ancestors reached the lowest spiritual degradation, which the Sabbath breaking was their main marker and indicator, and were consequently destroyed and humiliated among the pagan nations. That is how the metaphorical expression materialized to posterity and was a well known pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased lower than animals, for their transgressions

2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".

The emphasis on humiliation, in addition to the beastly reference, suggests that it is the abstract state of abasement that is meant. The mere physical transformation into apes would have been enough in itself as a humiliation. As the HB states about those who do any type of work on the sabbath

 Ex31:14"that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people".

In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them 

3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers". 

None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.

The incident the Quran chose to illustrate their lack of consideration and abuse of the Sabbath is a highly meaningful and appropriate one; the prophet Muhammad is told to question them (a questioning can be done with the object of reminding one of a forgotten occasion) when the Jewish inhabitants of a coastal city would fish on the Sabbath and not on the other days 7:163-6. They did so out of pure laziness, unconcerned by the spiritual consequences, blinded by their sinful, rebellious hearts, simply because it happened that whenever the Sabbath arrived, the fish were easier to capture

"their fish came to them..appearing on the surface of the water"

but on other days the fish did not readily come in that favorable manner and had therefore to be patiently sought and trapped as normal fishermen do. The incident shows how convenience, not even necessity or hardship, was a good enough reason for them to transgress one of the most basic and sacred ordinance. For comparison, the hadith describe a situation where a traveling group of Muslims among whom some were in a state of ihram (forbidden to hunt, among ither restrictions prior to the pilgrimage) while others werent, refused participating even indirectly in the capture of a prey, despite their hunger 

"Once, while I was sitting with the companions of the Prophet at a station on the road to Mecca and Allah's Messenger was stationing ahead of us and all the people were assuming Ihram while I was not. My companion, saw an onager while I was busy Mending my shoes. They did not Inform me of the onager but they wished that I would see it Suddenly I looked and saw the onager Then I headed towards my horse, saddled it and rode, but I forgot to take the lash and the spear. So I said to them my companions), "Give me the lash and the spear." But they said, "No, by Allah we will not help you in any way to hunt it ' I got angry, dismounted, took it the spear and the lash), rode (the horse chased the onager and wounded it Then I brought it when it had dyed. My companions started eating of its (cooked) meat, but they suspected that it might be unlawful to eat of its meat while they were in a state of Ihram Then I proceeded further and I kept one of its forelegs with me. When we met Allah's Apostle we asked him about that. He said, "Have you some of its meat with you?" I gave him that foreleg and he ate the meat till he stripped the bone of its flesh although he was in a state of Ihram".

What is interesting is that there is actually a debate in the Talmud about whether it is permitted to lay out nets before Shabbat in order to catch fish on Shabbat. This shows that there is a historical basis for the discussion or that there was a need to circumvent shabbat in that specific case, which then triggered the debate. The Shammai schools forbids it while the one of Hillel allows it (shabbat 1:7). The latter school of interpretation is regarded as more authorative, making it permissible to lay traps for fish ahead of the Sabbath, thus opening the way for their distortions of the spirit of the Law to suit their needs.

Instead of using that occasion, the peculiar behavior of the fish, as a means by which they can put Shabbat above worldly convenience, they actually sunk deeper into sin and defiance. Not only that, they repeated their transgression openly, despite the admonishments of righteous members of the community. Their spirituality was so degraded that they would turn a deaf ear and rather disobey than miss a trouble-free opportunity. It is important to keep in view that the Quran does not generalize this behavior to the whole community.

A closer reading of the verses shows that there were not only 2 but 3 groups; the rebellious, the admonishers, and the ones passively sitting by, with the understanding that a punishment would soon befall the transgressors 7:164. This means that although, prior to the incident many had transgressed the Sabbath, some had successfully passed the trial by reforming themselves and desisting from catching the fish despite the convenient opportunity. But 1 group failed the test and was consequently punished. Also, the fact that a group knew that the Sabbath violators would be divinely punished, before their abasement to the level of despised apes, reinforces what was said earlier concerning the well-known, established pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased for their transgressions

2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated".

In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them 

3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers". 

None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.

Islam critiqued exposes animal abuse; prophet killing snakes?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Snakes, Mice and Jews"

The prophet discouraged killing non-harmful house snakes as opposed to the venomous ones that should be killed right away if one finds himself confronted to it and with no other choice. As to the uninvited house snakes they are to be dislodged in a gentle way over 3 days and if they remain, then they can be killed. In some reports he advises reciting a prayer in remembrance of a Noahide and Solomonic covenant while dislodging them.

There is nothing irrational in verbally addressing any sentient creature to make it perceive one's basic expectations or emotional disposition towards it. This is done all the time and with all kinds of animals, by their masters, those raising them and domesticating them. The Judeo-christian critics shouldn't be shocked by this as donkeys were made to speak in their scriptures and long before, in the times of Adam, people dialogued with talking snakes.

In light of the relevant narrations, there obviously was a snake infestation. Among them, there were non-venomous ones that were regularly found in people's houses, which werent a priority. However there were others that caused blindness and miscarriages. The infestation had to be controlled by killing the venomous ones and attempting to chase away peacefully the others from peoples' homes.

Like with the snakes, the prophet recommended the killing of a type of lizard/gecko that were, in his environment, harmful pests. They leave their droppings all over a household, which might mix with people's foods. When he reportedly mentioned that lizards blew into the furnace in the time of Abraham, this statement cannot be taken more than an illustration of the potential harm that comes from them. He did not give that example as a reason to kill the house lizards. Something to note is that the scholars have traced that statement about lizards blowing into the furnace, found in hadith collections outside the sahihayn, not to the prophet but to ibn Jurayj, and questioned its authenticity. In any case, the order to kill these house pests does not cover all types of lizards. The prophet even gave free license to those that liked eating them. Nor is killing them a religious order. Aisha for example, speaking of the harmful lizards, was unaware of the order to kill them, as opposed to other companions

 "I have not heard the prophet ordering it to be killed. Saad ibn Waqqas claims that the prophet ordered that it should be killed". 

It is possible that at some point the prophet, seeing that the lizard population was increasing in some households, encouraged their killing so as to maintain some hygienic standards in certain areas or parts of the community that were affected. This can be deduced from Aisha at a later point, having to keep in her home a spear for that purpose 

"O Mother of the Believers, what do you do with this?” She said: “We kill these house lizards with it".

One last observation is not to transpose our own perception of our environment to those ancient times, where people were much more vulnerable to death, infections and diseases than nowadays. And had therefore to take measures adapted to their time so as to keep themselves safe.

Acts17apologetics validate their saint; Jesus' followers endorsed Paul?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

Paul was rejected by the Jews, who sought to murder him. Jesus' followers resented him, but he succesfully infiltrated their ranks after he deceived them by partaking in the HB sacrificial system to prove his allegiance to Moses' law, the same law he was busy disparaging and cursing Acts21. But to the pagans to whom he focused his preaching, the reception was completely different, he told them exactly what they wanted to hear and what they were used to hear in their pagan religions.

Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical. That is why we only hear Paul's side of the story in his rants and diatribes aka "epistles". We never get Jesus' close circle's side. They are barely mentionned, despite their presence in Jerusalem during the so-called early persecution of the church followed by the scattering of the brethren. Peter's side of the argument against Paul is absent. He is disposed of after the "Council of Jerusalem" of Acts 15.

Nor do we have James' account of the whole mess when he summoned Paul three times to Jerusalem and Paul instead takes a tour of Macedonia. Besides making a ruling favorable to Paul's idea of dismissing the circumcision of the gentiles, James is quickly silenced and never heard of again. The NT tries to hide the fact that these men disagreed and competed against each other. The Pauline Church claims to have resolved the conflict, yet all we have are the words of the Pauline Church.

None of Jesus' own apostles ever affirms Paul's authority (2 Peter being pseudepigraphical). As Paul gained ascendancy and had taken over the leadership of the church, a direct attack on Paul would mean the certain condemnation of their writings and would eliminate any chance of having their (In fact Jesus' true) message included within the canon of the church. In fact, Paul never developed a kinship with the men who had been close to Jesus, such as his brother, James, or his other disciples who were now the leaders of the Jerusalem Council Acts15. Paul remained aloof from the people associated with Jesus and his teachings, in fact it is stated in the church rejected (unsurprisingly) Clementine Recognitions how Saul attempted murdering James before his "conversion". If the followers of Peter and James had been the ones to choose what to include in the NT this more dramatic picture of Paul would have appeared instead of Luke's minimization of Paul's persecution of the Christians such as holding the cloaks of those who were throwing the stones or consenting to Stephen's death.

Inevitably there would be a clash between men like James and Peter on one hand who had known Jesus and wanted to disseminate his teachings, and Paul who claimed to have met Jesus only in a vision and whose religious ideas were contrary to those of Jesus' original followers.

Acts17apologetics turn to secular historians; extra biblical witnesses?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works. These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.
There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery.

For example Origen the Church Father who spent most of his life contending with the pagan writer Celsus, and using Josephus' works failed to mention this "ultimate rebuttal". Origen even condemns Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah in his writings. It isnt until Eusebius the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that

"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",

the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes

"compelled to say not what they think but what is useful",

that we see a mention of the passage. The first ever mention of the passage unsurprisingly comes at a time where Christianity monopolised what should be the truth, torching whole libraries, yet keeping Josephus' histories which they needed to advance their cause, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ.

In fact the Latin version of Josephus' work translated by Jerome is very similar to the quote Eusebius attributes to Josephus, except of course for the crucial parts about Jesus. Even later Christian apologists and open deciever such as Chrysostom who judged that "often it is necessary to deceive", and Photius both rejected this passage in their works yet they needed evidence such as this in their writings. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. Because of the overwhelming evidence against its authenticity, Christian apologists try turning to another much briefer reference in "Book 20" Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made "high priest by king Agrippa".

Finally, even though Josephus is the only non-Christian source that mentions John the Baptist, yet he presents a different picture of him than the NT portrayal, and makes no reference to him proclaiming anything about Jesus.

No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that  the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.

Muslims got their answer to this through revelation 

"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute". 

Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.

Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion

"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".

None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world,  recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.

There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.

Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.

It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.

Sulpicius Severus wrote in the 5th century about alleged Christian persecution under Emperor Nero yet no historian or any Christian writer ever confirmed this, including Josephus who did not fail describing and denouncing Nero's abuse of power.

Another funny forgery is The Lentulus Letter, attributed to a fictitious predecessor to Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, called "Publius Lentulus". The letter is addressed to the Roman Senate, reporting Christ's "raising of the dead", describes him as "the most beautiful of the sons of men."

In a desperat bid, some Christians use a passage by Suetonius who wrote a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD, where he mentions the political agitations of a "Chrestus" in Rome in 54 AD, which of course couldnt be Jesus. Also, 'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'the good' in Greek. It was a name used by both slaves and freemen. Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s.

Acts17apologetics confronted to bad taste; too much drama ruins the Gospel fable?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

The death and birth of great personalities was meant to be accompanied by great signs, in the minds of ancient people. The gospel writers were no exception. However the over dramatization surrounding Jesus' death found in Matt27:45-52, which clearly was an effort by that unknown writer to connect Jesus to the prophecies of Zech14, isnt reported in other Gospels let alone contemporary historical writings, with the eclipse, earthquake and deads coming back to life to be seen by many (where did they all go by the way, did they just keep wandering around for some time like zombies in the streets of Jerusalem?).

That is besides the other spectacular events such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his witnessed ascencion to heaven and other various wonderful displays allegedly seen by many. None of all this is reported in history including the works of Josephus or Philo who lived very close to the time and at the place where all these things supposedly happenned and wrote profusely about every noted personage of Palestine, describing every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era, even Galilee natives historians such as Tiberias who wrote detailed accounts of the period and of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus existed.

Same deafening silence regarding other contemporaries of Jesus such as the Roman aristocrat and prodigious writer Seneca, and Pliny the Elder or other historians of the time who failed to mention these amazing events yet their works covered vast subjects relevant to their period. Seneca's silence was such an embarrasement even to early Christians that in the late 4th century forgeries were made in the shape of an exchange of letters between him and none other than the apostle Paul.

Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early to fit the NT tale) and again in 110 CE (too late).

Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.

Even Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive.

Nor does he request the testimony of any of the apostles, still actively working miracles, as Paul himself amply did on his missionary trip and could therefore have easily done now. It is important to add that in Acts2, Peter, speaking to the disbelieving audience mocking the erratic drunk-like behavior of some Christians, does appeal to the miracles Jesus performed in his lifetime so as to strengthen his arguments. These miracles were, according to Peter done by God through Jesus (ie with God's authority as the Quran states) and were all witnessed by that audience "as you yourselves know". So to Peter, it certainly was necessary to remind his skeptical audience of the miracles that marked Jesus' life, even though they had witnessed them and knew about them. Yet when Peter alludes to the crucifixion and resurrection, he says nothing of the supernatural and cataclysmic events they had supposedly previously witnessed, so as to enhance his claims for the divine necessity of Jesus' suicide. He instead refers back to prophecies of the HB. Peter, just like Paul and all of contemporary secular historical records ommit those events because they never occured.

Although Christian apologists choose to ignore Matthew's account and his miracles -for obvious reasons- when trying to prove the historicity of the crucifixion, they do try to find some basis for the eclipse by refering to an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about; Thallus. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

Acts17apologetics try dealing with facts; Jesus at the sanhedrin?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

Here are some other interesting facts negating the crucifixion as depicted in the NT. The Jews didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses:

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.


-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic commandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? And not only in the eyes of the authorities but in light of Jewish law itself since the halakha requirements for a legal trial were not fulfilled? When the Pharisees take him to the authorities, Pilate tells them to 

"Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law". 

This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts except if it threatened the state. To try creating a valid criminal case they begin accusing him of rebellion against the state and claiming kingship. These charges have no bearing on Jewish law, so that this historically exceptional Sanhedrin had to be hastily set up. This is because the messianic king supposed to usher the era of Jewish dominance over the entire world will do just that. Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus was supported by those very Pharisees, hoping he would fulfill those very "crimes" they supposedly accused Jesus of comitting. 

That "pre-trial" was thus irrelevant on all counts. They could have just handed him to Pilate, on the charge of rebellion, this way saving time on passover eve, in preparation for their festival. They would have also avoided breaking a long list of requirements while setting up this hasty trial, making it invalid even by their own law.

 

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..

Acts17apologetics try reconciling the account; which day was Jesus crucified?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

Matt26:20-30,Mark14:17-25,Luke22:14-23 all agree that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, a set of rituals occuring on the first night of Passover Lev23:5-8. Jewish days begin at sunset (not at midnight or even at dawn) and end at sunset. Thus anyone "preparing" for Passover during daylight would celebrate it from sunset.

Jesus was crucified on the next day of the Passover Seder. This would have to be the 15th day of Nissan. John's unknown author contradicts this by stating Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan Jn19:14-16. He terms it “preperation day” in Koine Greek, an expression alien to Jewish scriptures. No preparation work may be performed on a Festival day. If a Festival falls on a Friday for example, any preparations for Shabbat must be made earlier than friday, before the Festival begins.

Thus, the Thursday would have to be what the Greek author refers to as "preperation day" for BOTH the passover seder AND for Shabbat. But the passover never begins on a Thursday night in recent times, and hardly ever did, even in Talmudic times. Neither did Passover begin on thursday night etween 26 CE and 40 CE, the various times thought to surround Jesus' death. As a side note these variations are due to the NT confusing Jesus' basic timeline. For example Jesus is said to have been born when Herod was King of Judea Lk1:5, Quirinius was Governor of Syria Lk2:2 and Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome Lk2:1. Yet those three occurrences never overlap historically so it is impossible to say if Jesus supposedly died in the 20s or 30s of the 1st century.

Anyway, the reason for passover not occuring on Thursdays is that the Rabbis who originally constructed the calendar deemed it an unacceptable burden on the community for there to be two consecutive days on which any food preparation is forbidden.

This important discrepency of the so called 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, cannot be explained throught the typical "different perspectives of the Gospel writers" argument. Jesus simply could not have been crucified on both days. John's account of the Last Supper, in accordance with the rabbinical perspective stated earlier, in Jn13 does not include the rites of a Passover Seder as the drinking of wine, or eating matzo/unleavened bread and herbs as we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's author was aware that the passover lamb had to be sacrificed on the afternoon on Nisan 14, so that it could be eaten after sunset (now Nisan 15), along with the matzo, herbs etc. Lev23:5-8.

The author of John had good reason to change the crucifixion day from the 15th of Nisan to the 14th of Nisan. Also, this Gospel was one of the last books written in the NT, around the 2nd century CE when the church had already become predominantly Gentile, so the author of John was appealing to their pagan influences, hence the "lamb". This animal is exclusively used in John, the pagan notion that a lamb was to be worshipped as a god, something that was widely practiced in the Roman Empire. He integrated that idea with elements of Judaism - in this case, the command in the Torah to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan Ex12:6,Lev23:6.

As an interesting side note, Matt26:17,Mk14:1,12,Lk22:1,7,Acts12:3,20:6,1Cor5:7,8 all quote Jesus in the last supper using "artos" for bread, meaning leavened bread (unless it has the azumos in front of it). In Judaism this is a sin because it is UNleavened bread/azumos artos (or matzo in Hebrew) that must be eaten on a Seder.

Also, according to John, when Judas Iscariot leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately presume that he is taking money to purchase food for the festival meal Jn13:29. In the other  Gospels, they had just eaten it. Again in Jn18:28 the Jews who were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion did not enter the headquarter

"so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover".

Yet in the 3 other Gospels they had already eaten it because the Passover Seder took place the previous night. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate.

Acts17apologetics investigate history; Extra-biblical evidence for resurrection and crucifixion?

In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"

Besides failing on a historical level for lack of external evidence, the crucifixion story as depicted in the Greek Christian writings fails on an internal, theological level. According to habakkuk1, the everlasting God "will never die". The Quran equally states 

25:58"And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise".

Humans have a dual nature, the body and the spirit. Lets call that human being John. John has thus a human body and a spiritual essence. John gets nailed on a cross and dies. His body expires while his spirit transitions to the hereafter. To say that John did not die on the cross because his spiritual essence survived would be false. Similarily God, according to the trinity doctrine has both a human body and a spiritual essence. God gets nailed on a cross and dies. His human nature expires while his spiritual essence transitions. To say that God did not die because his spiritual essence survived would then be as false as in John's case. 

Yet even from a materialistic standpoint, death is the end of life. In religion, death ends life in the present world and begins life in the hereafter. How does the ever-living, eternal God cease living in anyway shape or form? Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? Habakkuk1 is a general statement. It excludes death in any way. It doesnt say God's spirit cannot die while his body can. This is an example of what an explicit statement, closed to any misinterpretations, is. It is what is referred to in religious terminology, a firm verse, or as the Quran says, muhkam. A religion based on solid explicit tenets, does not seek ambiguous verses and try to derive isolated meanings upon which to build an entire belief system. Whenever confronted to ambiguous verses, that are open to several contradicting interpretations, we consider the context, the words used and cross reference them with other similar verses. More importantly, whatever the conclusion we come up with, the interpretation may never contradict the explicit, firm, decisive verses. But that is not how Pauline christianity works. In order to circumvent the statement that God "will never die" and make it fit the belief of divine sacrifice, it is said that this sacrificing Christian god didnt really die. Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? 

Further, why would God go as far as killing his son (or self) to prove his trustworthiness and capacity to truly forgive, and how is it a proof of love? Only an unjust, deluded criminal, unworthy to be the judge of mankind would think that murder is a proof of love. Why would anyone trust an entity, divine or else, willing to commit suicide (or even worse, kill its own progeny) to prove its love? One would instead try helping such entity out of its delusion. One would not want in anyway to be associated with such demonstration of "passionate love".

God, since times immemorial has been demonstrating His love through the prophets, sending promises of mercy and forgiveness before that mythological Greek drama was invented. Believers have always known and trusted this fact attested in scriptures over and over again, which God made contingent on repentance and obedience to His commandements. Nobody thought God would fail His promise, or was incapable of forgiving the servants that wholeheartedly turn to Him. The Quran treats such hopelessness in God as a mark of disbelief

39:53-4"Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped"
15:56"And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?".

That attribute of mercy is in fact the only one described in the Quran as "written upon" God 6:12,54. Christians on the other hand do not expect God to be merciful, to the point they need him to prove his capacity to forgive by murdering his own self/son. Furthermore, a judge that forgives someone because of the actions of another, Jesus' sacrifice in this case, isnt a merciful judge. Forgiveness wasnt triggered by the mercy of the judge, rather by the price paid by another. So although Christians do believe in their God's absolute mercy, in reality their concept of the divine is far removed from it. The profound difference in relation to that theological aspect between Islam and Christianity goes back to the story of the garden. While in the Quran, the story ends with hope and forgiveness, in Christianity it is misconstrued in a way the Jews who read the same scriptures before them, vehemently dispute.

In the Quran Adam is sent away from the garden with the message that whenever guidance is recognized and acted upon, then mankind "shall not go astray nor be unhappy". There is therefore in the Quranic account of creation no place for unconditional, senseless and indiscriminate condemnation. On the contrary, the incident is concluded with forgiveness and spiritual guidance. The Christian belief on the other hand is that there was no forgiveness, sin became ingrained in human nature and transmitted to Adam's progeny. On top of that, God, instead of sending the solution to that "problem" in the shape of Christ's atoning death, establishes a long line of prophethood and laws to be followed. This divinely decreed deceptive crooked system was bound to fail in the face of human depravity, for several thousands of years, until the issue of salvation was finally resolved with the crucifixion. This theology appeals to people who have despaired of life, themselves and God. It is toxic, as it crushes the person's self esteem, making him yield to dark thoughts of hopelessness in oneself, and it is satanic as it discourages the building of a relationship with a merciless, unloving God. Hope is therefore found elsewhere, neither in God nor man, but in an intercessor that fixes the defects of both so as to reconcile them. He is a sinless man and a merciful, loving God, both in one since the divine cancels sinfulness and the human cancels mercilessness and unlovingness. His divine nature makes this man capable of perfect deeds thus pleasing God and restoring His (God's) hope in man, while his human nature makes this God capable of dying, and through this self-sacrifice, capable of showing love and mercy, thus pleasing man and restoring his hope in God.

That is why the Quran quotes Jesus himself, emphatically denying the man-made, unscriptural notion of sin atonement as understood by those that deified him

5:72"and the messiah said; ...serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates with Him, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust".

In this short statement, Jesus nullifies everything Trinitarian Christianity stands for, the idea of a divine entity other than God being the means by which one's eternal felicity and freedom from sins depends. 

In another place, Jesus, instead of taking upon himself the sins of mankind, denies even the sins of his own followers that began deifying him. He washes his hands from their deviations and submits to God's justice, leaving the entire prerogative of salvation in God's hands 

5:116-118"If You should chastise them, then surely they are Your servants; and if You Should forgive them, then surely You are the Mighty, the Wise".

In the monotheistic faith, the prominence of God's attribute of mercy does not mean it comes freely. It is earned, through concrete, repeated, steadfast actions proving one's sincere penitent resolve. This however is only beneficial in relation to God's rights. But if a sin includes infringing on other people's rights then the divine law has declared it an injustice to deprive a victim of its due rights. In that case it is upon the victim to either benevolently forgive and turn away, or demand restitution for the harm done. No human sacrifice was needed before Jesus for people to known and trust in those things which the prophets said. It is ironic that in the book of Isaiah, the one most appealed to and distorted to prove the abhorrent notion of human sacrifice as the only prerequisite for sin atonement, God says

Isa55"my ways are different from yours".

This comes right after the reassuring statement that God is near and hearer of prayers so

"Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive".

God's nature is contrary to human's who need and ask their debt to be settled in case of foul play. There are no debts between men and God, He doesnt lose anything from people transgressing His commands neither does He gain from their worship. His glory remains unchanged in both cases. That is why he does not need to be propitiated. 

For His mercy to be released, the sinner does not need to act in relation to God but to his own self, through repentance and mending of ways. This deed is one that has no effect on God but on the sinner, cleansing his own soul. It is as a result of the person taking action to cleanse his self, that God releases His mercy, blotting out the sin completely and forgives Isa43. This is the main, among many other avenues for forgiveness which the HB gives besides blood atonement. 

The concept of atoning sacrifice is nowhere to be found in Jesus' words anyway. He nowhere speaks of his own death as an atonement for sin. He is instead depicted as talking of his life as being a ransom Mk10:45, but in a clear context of dedication and humility. He is dedicating his life for the sake of others, like all selfless people should. It is Paul who connected these words with expiation for sins in 1Tim2. This spin caused intense debates and disagreements throughout the ages among all branches of Christianity; ranging from the notion of Jesus' life being the ransom paid back to Satan who held humanity in hostage, to the idea that God the Father was the one to receive the payment, and many other nuances in between. The inherent problems to every proposition, the contradictions each of them create with various Christian doctrines such as God literally ransoming himself to himself, is what led the Roman Catholic Church to describe the ransom theory as a "mystery of universal redemption".