This is 1 hour and 40 minutes of presentation. It was painful to listen to but for you the truth seeker, and for all those Christians who are now disillusioned with Christian theology I will do what I can to break down his presentation and show how and why it is problematic.
In the video above at 0:0 2:18-19 James mentions the fact that Hamza AbdulMalik his first debate opponent is now a "Qur'an Only" Muslim. He goes on to mention Sam Shamoun was on the show and says that he has people who show that the word 'Wa' is a connector.
What is the point here? So 'wa' is a connector? No point at all just White rattling on about things he has no knowledge about.
So White said "Wa" is a connector. You say "Wa" is a connector. So what did Dr. White get wrong? Did thegrandverbalizer understand the point James White was making? I'm not sure.
At 0:03:46 minutes into the discussion James White tells us that the problem with the Muslims is that we ASSUME that Muhammed (saw) is truthful and the Qur'an is true. However, Christians are correct because they ASSUME that the Biblical portrayal of Jesus is accurate.
Ummmm did I miss something? It's wrong for Muslims to have a presuppositional view of the Qur'an but it's o.k for Christians to have a presuppositional view of the New Testament?
Yup, he missed something. If you can demonstrate that the claims of Muhammad are not true then a presuppositional view of Islamic theology does not work. That is what Dr. White was saying.
Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and in this case a failed presentation...
Case in point. You have to show that the Bible has errors and demonstrate that it is wrong in order for the presuppostional apologetic of the Bible to fail. Haven't seen anyone do that. However, Dr White does that in this very program with Islam.
White than tries to make his presentation look solid by using a not so convincing presentation by Muslims. The thing I fine funny is when I hear White speak I could imagine a Muslim sitting in that chair and leveling the exact same charge at the Christian.
"Once the Christian is presented with the evidence the Biblical record of Jesus can't be trusted, they simply ignore it". C'mon! This is polemic nothing academic about it. (Hince the need to get one's degree from a forgery mill) ....moving on....
Um, then provide evidence that the Biblical record of Jesus can't be trusted. And the swipe at White's scholarship should be substantiated or taken back.
At 0:07:35 minutes into the discussion White tries to say that Isa (Esau) is not the name of Jesus. Well duh! Jesus is not even the name of Jesus! If God almighty wanted everyone to call Jesus Yeshouah he could have had the New Testament inspired in Hebrew and not written and passed down in Coine Greek. Think about it.
I've thought about it and can't imagine many arguments more inane than this one (atheists are worse), "Jesus" is the English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of Yeshua and "Ias" is not. Again a transliteration is literally translating a word by switching the letters from Hebrew to Greek - preserving it's meaning.. I see nothing wrong with doing that.and thegrandverbalizer fails to explain what is wrong with that. .
Not only that but Yeshouah translated into English is Joshua. That just doesn't work for the Christian. "In the name of Joshua!" "You are healed in the name of Joshua!" "Joshua Christ is the answer". So I thought that 'point' was a little off key even for White.
"Joshua" is the English translation of Yeshua. I don't think for a second that there is a problem with Calling Jesus "Joshua" but that is not our tradition in English and I don't see any reason why thegrandverbalizer is making a big point out of an aside and then try to upbraid Dr. White for it. Another sign of a failed argument.
James White uses Liberal Scholarship??? Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. 0:08:20 minutes into the presentation.
Well, well well the chickens do come home to roost don't they? I don't know how many times James says to Muslims why do you quote redaction critiques and liberals; yet lo and behold the good "Dr" himself is now quoting liberal scholarship. Simply Amazing.
I would like to know which "liberal scholar" Dr White quoting. His point is that the Jesus in the Qur'an is not the dynamic teacher dropping awesome wisdom, performing miracles, confronting the establishment, correcting social inequities, challenging traditions and biases, and most importantly claiming to be the sole path to God as he does in the Bible. In other words, kicking evil's butt and taking names - redeeming us from sin and death.
At 0:08:40 White says the Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. This is just rhetoric. We all know that the New Testament is a presentation not a person.
A person is flesh and blood. Both the Qur'an and the New Testament give a presentation as to who he was.
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
I sure hope people watch the video and see how thegrandverbalizer quotes Dr. White out of context. The Gosepls are biographies done in the style of how biographies were written in the first century. We get to see who Jesus is. What is important to Him. What He does and what He taught. None of that is in the Qur'an. If it is then James White is wrong. Kindly prove it,. .
0:09:48 minutes into the presentation the Sovereign God of the universe willed for the following to come out of the lips of James White, "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
It was simply a slip of the tongue that he corrected.
Think about that! Imagine being IN the body of Christ, and being SANCTIFIED by God and making that statement while leveling an attack upon a revelation (the Qur'an) which claims to present the prophet Jesus (before he became super-sized)
Um, the New Testament predates the Qur'an and they conflict. They both cannot be God revelation. Being saved doesn't make one infallible. The Bible is infallible, not James White.
This is what you get. When you attack Allah's words you will be made to look silly.
Any way moving along...
0:10:10 Jesus is basically a walking argument for monotheism and the prophecy of Muhammed. Well once again you think? James White is coming from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus IS the focus.
The Muslim is coming from a world view in which GOD IS the focus. In fact for all the grandstanding that White is doing about Jesus not being the focus, seems the last time I went to Church Paul was quoted the majority of the time. Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament books, Jesus Christ wrote Zip, Zilch, Nada, Nothing.
Paul did not teach anything contrary to what the Jesus said in the Gospels or any of the epistles. So thegrandverbalizer's argument has no traction. To focus on Jesus is to focus on God.
I would find it very strange if after Prophet Muhammed (saw) died some one came along in Islam and claimed the right to write inspired revelation on behalf of God, and presented a different theological picture than what the Prophet Muhammed (saw) brought. This is the parallel we are looking at.
Again not true.Sounds like thegrandverbalizer has been reading the liberal scholars again. .
It's amazing that at 0:10:25 minutes James starts talking about 'history' as if he knows what is historical and what is not. In fact this is a technique used across the board from William Lane Craig to White to make it seem as if everything in the New Testament is verifiable fact of history.
Can thegrandverbalizer prove that the New Testament does not contain history? Yup, thought not.
Well, let's ask historians themselves the definition of history.
Historical proof is by no means black and white – that is, something is either proved about someone or its not. Instead of speaking of “proof”, in the historical sciences it is much clearer to speak of “levels of confidence”. That is, we can have varying levels of confidence in the truth or falsity of a historical claim. The more evidence (and the better), the higher our level of confidence is.
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
So is thegrandverbalizer arguing that some of those things not in the New Testament in the Qur'an.? I hope not.
However, listen to what White says as it comes back on him again just a few minutes latter.
0:10:27 Muhammed (saw) just 'uncritically accepted them and things like that'. Is this really how a person gives an academic presentation? "things like that". I mean how often does James White fail to give his audience something substantiate but leaves us with the empty word 'things".
It was clear in the context of the video what Dr White was saying. One should try to keep up.
I know in the United States we are a dumb down generation in terms of our literacy, but c'mon when we are talking about eternal salvation surely we can do better than "things like that".
0:13:30 "What Muhammed (saw) would have would show an in depth understanding of who Jesus was". This is also a very weak argument. The reason it is weak is because once again it assumes that Jesus IS the focus. Maybe for the Christian who has now been inundated with 'original sin', Calvinism, trinitarian presentations of the creator; but for the Muslim the focus IS GOD.
So thegrandverbalizer is saying that Jesus is not discussed in the Qur'an because the focus is God not Jesus. I agree. IF the focus of the Bible is Jesus, then what does that tell you? The Bible presents Jesus as God incarnate.
The proof is obvious. Notice that James White does not go on and on about how the Qur'an does not give us an in depth understanding of Aaron, or Lut or Noah for that matter.
Pointless..
Again James White is approaching Islam from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus is at the center. I'm sorry James but God Almighty from before the time of Abraham and even after the time of Muhammed (saw) WAS, IS and Shall forever be THE FOCUS.
Jesus was not just a man. He was not just a prophet. The FOCUS is to know who Jesus is if No one is able to come to God but through Him (which is what the Bible says).
0:13:49 "has only encountered Christianity MAYBE on caravan trips to Syria, sitting around the camp fire listening to stories from CHRISTIANS and Jews why is it that the story of Jesus in the Qur'an is much more commensurate with that."
Mash'Allah VERY GOOD JAMES!!! If he would only ponder that very point! Notice what James is saying (if he would only ponder it) His admission though it is speculation (MAYBE) that Muhammed (saw) encountered CHRISTIANITY (not gnosticism) and he was listening to stories from CHRISTIANS (not Gnostics).
I don't remember James White even bringing up gnostics. But considering that the only non-muslim records we have mentioning Jesus speaking from the crib are gnostic in origin, I'd be very careful in trying to hang an argument on the paragraph about. It won't hold.
So here would be a good question. What happened? Surely in all those caravan trips to Syria, and all those camp fire stories he heard the good Christians mention something about 'Trinity', 'Original Sin', 'Jesus is Deity'. etc?
I don't know what Muhammad heard. It's possible that he never talked to people who followed the Bible but only called themselves "Christians". We know he didn't read this stuff from the Old or New Testaments; Muhammad was illiterate, right?
Not only that but it refutes his earlier point about the so called apocryphal text in the Qur'an. Obviously if Muhammed (saw) was getting such sources from Christians and Christianity those whom he "received' must have thought highly of it.
Have no idea where Muhammad got his views on Christian theology and Dr White was merely making suggestions. The larger point was that what The Quran says Christians believe does not match what the Bible tells us we should believe.
However, I won't go into the fact that the Christian world (till this very day) disputes what is the canon of both the New and the Old Testament. (That's for another entry insh'Allah).
I disagree with this point. I'd like to see his proof for this.
0:14:20 "Allah knew everything the New Testament said about Jesus". Two assumptions here.
1) That the New Testament gives an accurate portrait of who Jesus really was.
Prove that
2) That it is even important to give EVERYTHING about Jesus.
How silly a statement is that! Once again...
Agreed. Good thing no one but thegrandverbalizer implied it let alone said it.
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The New Testament itself doesn't give EVERYTHING about Jesus. In fact after his birth we only hear about Jesus from the age of 30-33. So what does this prove? It proves nothing.
Does nothing to dispute Dr. White's point.
The Qur'an presents about Jesus, David, Solomon, Moses only what Allah feels is relevant nothing more and nothing less. Case closed.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody"
No comments:
Post a Comment