Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Was Christ Crucified To Death? Debate: Hamza Abdul Malik vs. Rev Donald Deluk

Here is debate between Hamza Abdul Malik (Muslim) vs. Rev Donald Deluk (Christian) concerning the question: Was Jesus Crucified. Deluk did much better than I thought he would. I have huge problems with Hamza Abdul Malik's arguments. He tried to deny the crucifixion and resurrection using the following points (not all that he used):

1. No one is born in sin given that John the Baptist and Jeremiah were sanctified at birth. sanctified does not equal "sinless".
2. Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit until His baptism - wrong. John 1:1-18 refutes this.
3. If there is no sin curse, then there is no need for atonement. I would agree, but no where does the bible say Jeremiah or John the Baptist were sinless. That's a Muslim assumption made about all prophets. Only Jesus is sinless according to the Bible.
4. Paul did not care about the historical Jesus because he did not talk about what Jesus did. Arguing from silence is no argument and it's not complete silence. Paul tells us a lot more details about the last supper that are not found in the Gospels
5. Hamza Abdul Malik argued that Jesus was alive because Johnah was alive in the belly of the fish. That is not what Jesus was referring to. That pushes the analogy too far beyond the point Jesus made.
6. Hamza Abdul Malik said that the Jews said that when Jesus was alive He would rise from the dead and they were worried because they knew Jesus was taken down alive. That is wrong. The text is clear. Jesus died.
7. Hamza Abdul Malik argued that the angels at the tomb said that Jesus was alive, but he neglects to mention that the angels said "He has risen". From what? The dead!
8. Hamza Abdul Malik argue that "giving up the ghost" does not mean die??! I can't believe hes aid it with a strraight face!
9. Hamza Abdul Malik' tried to show that the resurrected bidy is not supposed to be tangible but  Jesus did when he appeared to the disciples. He equates "spirit" with resurrected body and that is not what a resurected body is. According to the Bible Jesus is alive and had flesh.  The same body but trsnaformed in a way we don't understand yet.

Hamza Abdul Malik twists and distorts a lot. Nothing that I think Deluk could not have dalt with had he had the time. Hamza Abdul Malik was James White's first Muslim debate opponent. I'd like to see that debate I will look for it it.







Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Was Christ Crucified To Death? Debate: Hamza AbdulMalik vs. Rev Donald Deluk

What’s wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Ross?

I have posted a lot of posts referring to Hugh Ross' work. I went to look at Answers in Genesis to see if they had any rebuttal information. They have quite a lot. I decided to interact with one of the essays by Ken Ham, also a man I admire. He makes some great points, and does point out some things that I do not agree with. My comments are red.

By Ken Ham

The ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.
This brief summary of only some of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of the ‘Rossist’ position, including some that are not so well-known. We need to judge these against the absolutes of God's Word to see ‘whether these things were so.’ (Acts 17:11)
While Dr Ross is NOT an evolutionist per se, he does accept much of what evolutionists teach in astronomy and geology. We do not seek to pass judgment on his Christian character or commitment to the Lord.

I like this disclaimer.

In summary, progressive creation/Rossism teaches:

• The ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe occurred 16-billion-years ago; death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam & Eve.
• The days of Creation were long periods.
• Noah’s Flood was a local event.
• Sin has only a regionally limited effect on the world.
• Man-like creatures that behaved much like us—and painted on cave walls—existed before Adam and Eve, but didn’t have a spirit and thus had no salvation.
• The record of nature is just as perfect as the Word of God.
• Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.

Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are published by NAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’

Progressive Creation/Rossism teachings

(The following quotes are all taken from lectures or publications by Dr Ross)

1. Concerning the creation of life in the universe:

‘It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible.
‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).

Our Comment: Read John 3:16 for yourself and compare it to the above!

I doubt that Hugh Ross would disagree with Ken Ham.

Also: ‘Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)

Comment: God is omnipotent—He could make a fully functional universe ready for life right from the beginning, for with God nothing is impossible. (See Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27)

 God could have created the universes in 6 sec, 6 days, 6 years, or 6 billion years. What ever he wanted. The point is understanding what God actually did.

2. Dr Ross defending his belief that Noah’s Flood was only local:

‘But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.
‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)

Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!

I agree that the flood was global not local because i think that the time the earth had only one land mass.  Given the argument I give here: Pangea - Biblical Evidence

3. Dr. Ross defining what he calls the ‘sixty-seventh book of the Bible’:

‘Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.
‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).

Comment: Indeed God cannot lie, so when He tells us in Romans 8:22 that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin, then how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God?

I don't think that Ross is saying that we should use believe "science" over scripture. But I believe that because God is rational and has left enough "bread crumbs" that we can follow the Bread crumbs and find truth about the reality of what God created.

4. Dr Ross’s Creation story for children states:

‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.
‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)

Comment: Dr Ross accepts and defends the evolutionist radiometric dating methods, so all evidence of humans, descendants of Noah, if given evolutionary dates of more than 25,000 years (eg., The Neanderthal cave sites) must be redefined as related to spirit-less ‘hominoids’ which the Bible doesn’t mention. However, the same methods have been used to ‘date’ the Australian aborigines back at least 40,000 years (some have claimed much older). By Ross’s reasoning, the Australian aborigines could NOT be descendants of Adam and Eve. However, read Acts 17:26. Interestingly, some scientists now date the American Indians’ ancestors at earlier than 40,000 years.

I have never heard Ross try to defend this view in a debate, but if Ham is correct I completely disagree with the thought of souless hominids before Adam and Eve. I don't see how scripture bears this out.

5. Dr Ross commenting on God’s knowledge and wisdom:

‘The Creator of the universe must be a Being that’s a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated, more intelligent, therefore more powerful, more creative, and even more caring and loving than we human beings.’ (Focus on the Family, radio broadcast, August 7, 1997)

Comment: Our Creator is NOT a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated! He is INFINITELY more knowledgeable. (See Col. 2:3; Job 21:22, 42:1–6)

Ross would not disagree with Ham on this point. He is not saying something different. They agree. And so do I.

6. Dr Ross defending death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin:

‘The spilling of blood before Adam’s sin in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a Creation scenario in which none of God’s creatures received a scratch or other blood-letting wound before Adam and Eve sinned … Even in an ideal natural environment animals would be constantly scratched, pricked, bruised, and even killed by accidental events and each other … Could it be that God’s purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the ‘random, wasteful, inefficiencies’ of the natural realm He created?’ (Creation and Time, Chapters 6 & 8)

Comment: Read Genesis 1:29,30; Genesis 9:3; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:17-19; Genesis 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; Romans 5; Romans 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 3:21; Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3.
God created a perfect world at the beginning—all the animals and man were vegetarians (Gen. 1:29). Plants were given for food—they do not have a ‘nephesh’ [life spirit] as man and animals do.
God killed the first animal in the Garden and shed blood because of sin—if there was death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, then the basis for the atonement is destroyed. Christ suffered death, for death was the penalty for sin. There will be no death or suffering in the perfect ‘restoration’—so why can’t we accept the same in a perfect (‘very good’) Creation before sin?

Does "very good" mean "perfect"?  I'm not sure.. Also asserting that plants don't have life spirit and don't die like men and animals I think may be a stretch.

7. Dr Ross on Revelation:

‘We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997)

Comment: Look up Revelation 6:9 for yourself!

Ham has a point. i think Ross missed it there.

8. Dr Ross on space-time dimensions:

‘What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, Chapter 8)

Comment: Dr Ross bases much of what he says on ‘string theory,’ which is NOT universally accepted, and is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists. It is so vague and speculative, and without experimental support, that to use it to apply to defining attributes of God is foolish.
In the same book Dr Ross declares: ‘We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only for God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent of our own four.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, chapter 3)
Comment: What about Hebrews 11:3,6? Whatever happened to faith? String theory is NOT proof for God’s existence. Remember Romans 10:17: ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to bring people to Christ.
A detailed critique of many more ‘Rossist’ teachings is available in book form: Creation and Time—A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.

Proof does not equal evidence. The Big Bang is saying that matter, energy, space, and time came into existence together out of nothing. This is what Genesis 1:1 says. completely consistent. I think Ham is right about faith. It is by faith that we know for sure that God created everything out of nothing. But what harm is it to look at the evidence and notice that the creation has God's "fingerprints".


What’s wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Ross?

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Michael Licona

Brian Auten has done it again...providing an extremely helpful resource. In this interview with Michael Licona on can learn much about how to do Apologetics and more about the man himself and how God has brought him to this point in his life and ministry,  This is extremely awesome information. i really enjoy Licona's work and I think I will profit much from the links and resource posted in the blog post along with the interviewl

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Michael Licona

Apologetics 315: Essay: Defrocking the Priests of Scientism by Bob Perry

I'm taking samples of the essays being published at Apologetics 315. Bob Perry has written a great post that i really like. In a few paragraphs he explains why atheists like Michael Shermer are really holding and advancing a religious worldview, pretending that "non-belief" has nothing to do with faith but reason while simultaneously trying to deny ours. Read his post at the following link.

Apologetics 315: Essay: Defrocking the Priests of Scientism by Bob Perry

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Rahab Who Sits Still: Isaiah and Egypt

Here is a great post about Isaiah 20 and significant information about King Hezekiah and his problems with the Assyrians Dr. Mariottini does a wonderful job giving us the historical backdrop and why these passages are interesting.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Rahab Who Sits Still: Isaiah and Egypt

A Quick and Frustrated Review - Ehrman vs Evans Debate

Dr. James White has posted a great review on the Ehrman-Evans Debate. White made a lot of good observations but I don't think he gives Evans enough credit. I wish Evans could have spent some time refuting Ehrman's Biblical errors but as White pointed out he didn't have the time. Given that and Ehrman's aggression, the debate did seem to favor Ehrman. I think that Evans did scores some good points when he became more aggressive and stuck it out there. I loved the way Evans explained that 1st John 5:8,9 had nothing to do with formulating the Trinitarian doctrine

A Quick and Frustrated Review

YouTube - Does Isaiah 53 speak about Jesus?

Here is a short video clip where Hamza Malik tries to explain whether Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus or not. His argument is that because the passage is past tense it can't be referring to Jesus who lived 700 years after this prophecy was spoken. In addition he argues that the passage is about the nation of Israel itself.




There are a lot of problems with his arguments. they are the same as came up in my interaction with thegrandverbalizer in a couple of preceding posts. I will briefly respond for anyone who hasn't read them. Biblical Hebrew does not have verb tenses therefore it makes no sense to think that Isaiah was talking about something that already happened. Malik did not explain if the passage is not about Jesus, then how does Israel as a nation fulfill this passage? When did that happen? There are several parts of the passage that can't be applied to the nation of Israel. He also neglected to say that the idea that the passage is not Messianic is not the historical consensus of Judaism and even those who do think that the passage is about Israel as a nation do not think that it is talking about past but future events. Isaiah 53 says:

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

When has Israel as a nation ever fulfilled any of these verses?

I'm preparing a future post containing the entire debate.

YouTube - Does Isaiah 53 speak about Jesus?

How to smell out a bad faith debater and recognize a good faith one | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Here is a great Articleabout how tell if you are witnessing to someone or just wasting your time.  I found this very useful.

How to smell out a bad faith debater and recognize a good faith one | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry