Islam critiqued turns to the HB; Gospels misunderstand mosaic law?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The true failure of the Greek writers rests in their misunderstanding of the Hebrew sacrificial system, leading to a convoluted combination of the Jewish scriptures with their Hellenistic theological background of God incarnate and human sacrifice:

-Jesus wasnt perfect, unblemished as required for an offering Lev1:3,4:3,22:18-25,Deut17:1. He was beaten, scourged before his sacrifice Matt26:67,27:26,30-31,Mk14:65,15:15-20,Lk22:63,Jn18:22,19:1,3. How could God accept an offering that was beaten and humiliated, most of all "offered" by pagans. Animals do not sin. When the HB speaks of an animal without blemish, it is from a physical aspect, not metaphorical, ie sin blemishes. Also Jesus was circumcised, which is according to the NT itself, a mutilation Phil3:2,Gal5:12 (where did the foreskin of the everlasting God go to by the way?). Paul's priority was gentile, and more particularily Greek and Helenized people's conversions, hence that depiction of circumcision. The Greeks abhorred, and eventually outlawed it, which helped cause the Bar Kokhba revolt. Some Jews fearing persecution began calling for the removal of only a part of the prepuce, and some Hellenized Jews attempted to look uncircumcised by stretching the extant parts of their foreskins.

Continuing with what constitutes a valid offering in Jewish law, in case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old, having cloven hooves and chew cud and death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death. Lev4:27-29 also states that, logically, sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the (Aaronic) priest. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. All sacrifices, logicaly are offered by man to God, and never the other way around, by God to man. It is mankind that needs sacrifices to understand the value of life, giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves. 

That is the essence of why sacrifices were instituted, not to appease a vengeful deity whose anger towards His creatures' sins can only be abated with blood. A physically blemished animal isnt difficult for its owner to sacrifice, because it has lost its value to the farmer, becoming among his least valuable assets. God points that reality to the half-hearted priests who offered their worthless animals in sacrifice

Mal1:8-14"When you offer a blind [animal] for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong? Were you to offer it to your governor, would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts..And you brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame and the sick. And you bring an offering-will I accept it from your hand? says the Lord. And cursed is he who deals craftily; although there is a ram in his flock, he vows and sacrifices a blemished one. For I am a great King, says the Lord of Hosts, and My Name is feared among the nations".

Definately, YHWH lays great stress on the quality of the offering to Him. And yet, assuming for argument's sake that God making an offering to the humans is a valid concept, He is not capable to reciprocate and instead offers a badly damaged sacrifice?

The strength of an animal, one that can be used for multiple tasks, relies on it being 'unblemished'. As the Torah states in regards to the firstborn, which is offered for sacrifice, he is the strength of the family. An elder son carried on the family tradition and assisted the father in his tasks, which parallels with Abraham's binding of his firstborn Ishmael, not Isaac. The near human sacrifice was stopped, substituted by a ram. It was a test of Abraham's trust in God and had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. 

Where, as a side note, in Torah does God prescribe humans as appropriate for sin sacrifice? Instead we read that human sacrifices of any kind is a forbidden abomination Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. God's anger in those verses is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis. It says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises.

- Another major inconsistency of the crucifixion as a sin offering, is that, Jewish law states it must be brought forth for unintentional sins Lev4,Num15:27-31. There are a few precise exceptions Lev5:1-6,6:1-7 but the overarching principle is that it should be a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. This undermines the notion of "once and for all sin sacrifice". Also, sin offerings did not apply to all offences, specific penalties are prescribed for many types of offence. For example, certain type of theft as described in Ex21:37 are only "forgiven" after payment of a fine, without requiring animal sacrifice. Numerous passages similarily explain how to expiate for sins in the absence of blood offerings.

- the notion of a "passover lamb" atoning for the sins of mankind Rom6:10,Heb9:12,10:10,18 misrepresents HB teachings on several levels. Firstly, the passover sacrifice is an individual offering, not communal Numb28:22 and according to Ex12, the Passover lamb was NOT a sin or even an atonement sacrifice but was meant to commemorate the Israelites' salvation from Egyptian bondage. Passover has thus nothing to do with repentance, but thanks-giving. Further, the Hebrew "seh" used in Ex12:3 doesnt mean a lamb as seen from V5"you can take the seh either from the lambs or from the goats". 

The "paschal lamb" didnt therefore even have to be a lamb as proposed in John who was obviously writing to a pagan audience who was familiar with lambs in their mythologies. Other instances of thanks-giving animal sacrifices are Noah's offerings following the flood. Historically, as reported in the HB, the blood of the paschal lambs marked the door frames of houses of the ISraelites to spare their firstborn males once the plague of death is delivered to the land of Egypt. The lambs were also to be roasted and eaten. Jesus was neither roasted nor eaten, and, once more, the Passover lamb was in actuality many lambs, not one, which were NOT atonement sacrifices but thanksgiving offerings.

- Another issue is Paul's peculiar idea that blood sacrifice freed mankind from the bondage of the divine law. Deut30:10-14 describes this same Law as being at anyone's reach meaning it cannot be a means by which God has binded mankind. Further, passover sacrifices did not free the ISraelites from bondage, contrary to the parallel Paul tries making with Jesus' sacrifice being what freed mankind from the Law.

- Other blunders by the NT writers due to their unfamiliarities with Jewish laws, is that an offering can only be done in a place designated by God Deut12:13-14,16:1-6,Ex28:35,Gen22:2. Animal sacrifices brought as sin offerings may only occur in the Temple precinct as stressed in Lev17:8-9. When God built the Temple through Solomon, all sacrifices at other altars ceased. All the major Biblical figures, from Abraham down to Solomon followed the practice of erecting, anointing and sacrificing at altars Gen12:7-8,28:18-9,Ex24:3-4,Joshua4:20,1Kings3:4etc. Jesus was nailed on a pagan symbol, by pagans Jn19:23 and Lev17:8-9 further states that anyone bringing an offering outside the Temple is to be "cut off". Jesus offerred himself according to Heb9:14 yet he wasnt even an Aaronic priest. 

It is the height of idiocy to argue God chose a pagan-run altar (the cross) for his place of sacrifice and choose idol-worshippers to perform an offering for Him. The very reason the altars were chosen by God was to avoid any tinge of idolatry. That is why the Israelites were instructed, upon their entry in Canaan they couldn't simply replace the existing altars of Canaan with their own, but they were ordered to smash them completely and leave not a trace of them Ex34:13, although they many times succombed to polytheism and worshiped at the pagan altars they were supposed to destroy 2Kings12:3,18:4,21:3.

- Jesus was tried on Passover night, or on the preceding night, in the palace of the high priest Mk14:53,Jn18:13. Yet the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus was situated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. It was assembled daily, only in daytime between the hours of the two daily sacrifices (approximately 7:30 A.M.–3:30 P.M.). Assemblies never occured at night as the NT depict, on the Sabbaths or festivals, or on their eves.

The closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16 on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case. A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king". Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. 

And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Islam critiqued asks; The Quran? much of it is gone!

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

This is a common hadith brought up by Islam's critics. Ibn Umar said

“Let none of you say ‘I have acquired/ahatta the whole of the Qur’an’. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared/faatahu? Rather let him say ‘I have acquired what has survived/ma tayassara minhu.'” 

This is a blatant mistranslation. The Arabic speaks of knowledge/understanding

"Let no one say: I have encompassed/understood the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated (for me to grasp).”

ibn Umar, to whom the quote belongs, wasnt refering to the Quran's collection. He was from a conservative school of thought in matters of Quranic exegisis, even criticizing ibn Abbas' zeal in comenting the sacred text. That is why he warns against those assuming that they are capable of fully grasping this mighty, intricate and deep word of God.

Islam critiqued goes to the pagans; non-Christian witnesses?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

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.

Islam critiqued in opposition to Jesus; the lamb runs from the slaughter?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not "Yet not My will, but Yours be done". Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners.

It also shows one of the so called co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times.

Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him.

The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.

This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death, similarily reveal the clumsiness of the Greek scribes trying to retrospectively enforce their theological agenda anyway they could, just as they did with their inapropriate linking of HB passages to Jesus.

When Jesus supposedly tells his disciples, several times and in the most explicit of ways, how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events allegedly unfold. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. These writers werent even able to maintain a consistent story line from chapter to chapter, why would anyone take any of their reports at face value? As a side note the cross was not a Christian symbol  until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross? We will leave that to Christians to ponder upon.

The "via dolorosa" as a side note, does not pass anywhere near this path, but follows the line of the town built on the ruins of old Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after 135, long after Jesus. The later embellishments along that route such as Jesus' encounters with Mary or Veronica or his falling three times, are also alien to even the Gospel accounts. The original holy walk had no "devotional halts" and went from the Mount of Olives southwest via Mount Sion before entering the city. But by the Middle Ages Christendom was divided by schisms, triggered less by theological and doctrinal subtleties than by power struggles and rivalry for converts in central Europe and the Balkans. The rancour and hostility between the Roman and Greek churches led each to scramble for the more impressive array of icons, relics and sanctuaries. In Jerusalem, opposing Christian groups established rival routes to Calvary (Latin for Golgotha), each route acquiring sacred stops along the way to add to their appeal and holiness. The Latins were even divided among themselves. An informed Christian would doubtless argue that the Via Dolorosa and its way stations are no longer understood as historically accurate, that they are symbolic.

Islam critiqued goes to zombieland; the signs of Jesus' death?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

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.

Islam critiqued turns to the HB; could the Jews kill Jesus?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Here are some other interesting facts pointing to the fictional nature of most of the Gospel account, especially in relation to Jesus' last moments;

-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..

Islam critiqued resorting once more to the damning NT; Jesus' last days?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

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 between 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.

Islam critiqued fails on all levels; The Bible itself rejects Christianity?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

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".

Islam critiqued thirsts for more gods; Logos, the new God?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Jn1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

The verse first of all says nothing about Jesus physically preexisting with God. And if "the word", Jesus' shape prior to his physical existence, was an entity appart from God, then it conflicts with

Mal3:6"I the Lord do not change".

The same shape He always had is the same one He always will have. God's word is no more a distinct person from himself than your word/purpose is a distinct person from yourself. When God created light with his word in Genesis, light became the manifestation of His will through the word "BE", not a manifestation of Himself.

In Prov8:23 just like the word was with God, wisdom is with God from eternity. It is common in Hebrew writings to personify concepts such as these. No Jew reading Prov8:23 would ever believe wisdom was a person seperate from God and present on his side from eternity. Job says in 12:13

"with God are wisdom and might".

Jews would often speak of God's attributes being "with" God as if they were persons. In the Targums(aramaic translations of the OT) the word(logos) of God is a common expression meaning the manifestation of God's wisdom and action (Targum Onkelos Gen39:2,Ex19:17,Job42:9,Ps2:4,106:12). I

ts clear from Isa44:24 confirmed by Jesus in Matt19:4,Mk10:6 that God created all things alone, no one was on his side, with no God before or after Him Isa43:10.

Philo a Hellenized Jew, much influenced both by Greek philosophy and Egyptian religious ideas, introduced this expression found in Jn1:1.

The Logos was present in the Egyptian pantheon, identified with the god Horus/Serapis, and similarly, in Stoic philosophy which held that the Logos made itself manifest through various gods – Zeus, Hermes, etc. When he was writing, and when the Greeks who penned the Gospels were writing, in a language loaded with Hellenistic theological baggage, the rules of mythological thinking continued to be in force, as far as images were concerned. They took these symbolisms for granted, unlike the "unsymbolic" later mindframe of those that approached such expressions.

Philo wrote hundreds of philosophical and religious essays during the first half of the first century and his primary purpose was to merge Mosaic Judaism with Pythagorean philosophy as noted by early Christian theologians such as Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - 215). For example he said that it was God who begat Isaac, through the "virgin" Sarah, although He/God made sure that Isaac closely resembled Abraham so as to not create any "ambiguity". Philo was highly allegorical and aggressively promoted the allegorical interpretation of scripture. In his idea, logos expressed all ways by which God makes His word/logic known to man for ex. his speech (which he called logos) was his Revelations, his reason (which he also called logos) was his Design.

Other "emanations" through which God made himself known to the world, in addition to the Logos were Sophia/Wisdom, Nous/Mind, Phronesis/Judgement, and Dynamis/Power. Thus the supreme God’s will, justice, power, etc., made its presence felt through these "emanations", which might take various forms.

Philo also describes Moses as the “empsychosis” of God’s divine thought, i.e. as the personalization of the Divine Plan (Life of Moses, I, 28). John's author understood the metaphor quite well, this is why he writes in Jn1:17 "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ". Both of them are an expression of God's plan, neither of them are gods nor preexisted physically at God's side.

Philo's "logos" has clearly been misapplied to promote trinitarianism by the likes of Justin Martyr, the 2nd century Church Father who proposed this idea of the son of God/Jesus preexisting with God, instead of the word/logos. Philo also wrote that God exists outside of time and space, that He has no human attributes or emotions. He even says God has no attributes at all, not even a name, and cannot be perceived by man. He insists that God doesn't change, is completely self-sufficient and thus in no need of "co-partners". He is eternal and doesnt die. Philo is not even by inference saying that the “word” can become “flesh.”  This is a pagan concept as epitomized by gods such as Hermes and Prometheus.

Logos never meant a person as seen in 1Jn1:1-3 where the word/logos is "That" not "he" and manifested, personified through Jesus. Logos appears 100s of times in the NT but only capitalized less than 10 times depending on bible versions and has a wide range of meanings for ex. "question" in Matt21:24 (NIV),"account" in Matt12:36,"command" in Gal5:14,"message" in Luke4:32,etc.

What is translated as "God" in the end of the verse "and the Word was God" is actually the Greek "theos" used to refer to the Father as well as others such as the Devil 2Cor4:4, lesser gods 1Cor8:5 or men with great authority Ex7:1,Jn10:34,35,Acts12:22. So it is the context that decides.

In addition almost every time the NT uses theos for the Father, it is preceded in the Greek by a definite article "Ho" and this contrast appears clearly in Jn1:1 where the Greek says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with "THE theos" and the Word was "theos". The definite article is missing from the second "theos" clearly to mark a sharp distinction, so it becomes an adjective qualifying the logos, ie "and the word was divine". In conclusion, the true meaning of Jn1:1 is

"In the beginning was the Word (the wisdom, plan or purpose of God), and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine".

A final thing to note, So this preincarnate Jesus was in a non human form. Jesus was "something minus the soul". Once that "something" assumed human form, the soul was added. After his resurrection and ascencion, the soul remained attached to him. He became in heaven a God with an additional part he did not have before. Jesus started as a God minus soul to God plus soul. God increases in nature?

Islam critiqued condemns an idol; Jesus breaks his promise?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Its unequivocal. As shown previously, Jesus' prophecy of imminent return failed and the NT writers have succesfully depicted him as a false prophet according to the criteria laid down in Deut18:21-22. It is worthwhile to note the reason why these unknown writers came up with the "second coming" theory. They knew very well, as any reader of the HB knows, that the Jewish Messiah foretold in the HB is supposed to perform specific tasks in his lifetime by which he will be identifiable, without being overcome by death or defeat Isa42:4.

But Jesus performed none of those tasks, hence the excuse that he will come back later to accomplish them. Of course, there isnt a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission.

As subsequent Christians were faced with yet another problem, that of the failure of Jesus' return, like every subsequent apocalyptic cult that has boldly proclaimed the End Time and embarrassingly survived into a new era, they tried and still do, to prolongue the timing of the prophecy put in Jesus' mouth.

It is also worthwile noting that the exact same problem is found throughout the Hebrew scriptures themselves that are full of prophecies of glad tidings, re-establishement and superiority of the Jews as a nation and religion over every other people. These utopian prophecies beome like a mantra, repeated following each of their destructions and exiles. But again, these prophecies never occured as predicted, in the specific contexts of their liberations from the yoke of their enemies. The biblical scholars are again forced to postpone these predictions to the undetermined long term, to be ushered at the "Messianic age". See Micah5 or Zeph3 for example.

Islam on the other hand is devoid of the short sighted apocalyptic cult mentality. It focuses on justice, which is why God gave mankind guidance in the organization and administration of religious, civic and secular life - in which justice is a necessary element. Islam focuses on justice because unlike early Christians, we did not expect the world to end in a few weeks and understood that life must go on until it does not. But in early Christanity, the emphasis on Jesus' imminent return motivated withdrawal from society, leaving sinful, "fallen" men to their own devices, without guidance to run the affairs of their communities.

As Jesus failed returning in a timely manner people realized life had to continue; inevitably leading to papacy, and then secularism, because Laws must necessarily exist to maintain order and ensure people can live in peace and security. Today Christian members of Congress are still debating whether or not two men can get married, Christian employees in the Pentagon are developing weapons that can kill more effectively and Christian bankers are devising interest-bearing schemes to get around government regulations to make people who have more than enough money even richer.

This is how "delivrance from sin and death" translates in today's Christian societies, a civilization in which sin and death is forcibly exported around the globe.