http://www.mortalresurrection.com/

Deedat is unrefutable

If Deedat cannot be refuted then why do you disagree with him? He says Jesus survived the crucifixion but you say that Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place. Unless you can refute Deedat’s hypothesis how do you know your hypothesis is correct?

In the light of the HISTORICAL evidence? Strange, the historians finds it even hard proving that Jesus (pbuh) ever existed let alone the SO-CALLED Crucifixion.

You’re mistaken but let’s follow your belief through. If you have a hard time showing that Jesus actually existed then you will have an extremely hard time showing that Jesus was not crucified. You’re admitting you have no historical evidence in favor of your position. Sounds like conjecture to me. Plus, Jesus’ non-existence would be disastrous for Islamic theology, would it not?

We muslims do not base our opinion (we don’t follow opinion as Christian do) on hear-say, doubts or conjecture. The Holy Qur’an made it very clear that “He was NEITHER Killed nor Crucified”. We accept this, “Aamanaa wa sadaqna” I never doubt this Qur’anic statement Alhamdullilah.

But Deedat does doubt that Jesus was not crucified. He thinks Jesus was not killed but that he was crucified. Your blind faith in the Quran is certainly conjecture.

Why did the Gospel writers claim differ about the time when Jesus (pbuh), as they claim, put on the cross? Surely, they were in doubt, for they follow nothing but “FICTION”- GUESS-WORK “Bal ibtighaa’ DHANNI” For surely, they killed him not.

The beloved disciple was at the foot of the cross. How could he be guessing?

As regards the one on the cross, do You know the name of the guy who wanted to sale his “Lord and Master”? Of course You do. Do You know his other name? Actually, his full-name was “Judah ESKARIOT”. Do You even know what does “ESKARIOT” mean? It mean the “LOOK-LIKE”. So the one put on the cross was the one who “LOOKED-LIKE” Jesus.

This is false. There are a number of views on the meaning of “Iscariot” but no one suggests it means “look alike”. The following meanings are suggested (see the Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 3, page 1091-2):

1) It means Judas was a member of the Zealot party.

2) It means “false one”, derived from the Hebrew saqar, and refers to his act of deception and betrayal.

3) It refers to Judas’ act of delivering or handing over Jesus.

4) It refers to Judas’ job as a red dyer.

5) It refers to Judas’ hometown.

Also, note that Judas’ father was known as Simon Iscariot (John 6:71; 13:2, 26) so the designation was not unique to Judas. It was a family name of some type.

Cry, bewailing, sobbing.

That is Deedat’s description of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane but it cannot be found in the Gospels. I am not interested in made up accounts.

Does that sounds to You like someone who is willing to die for You?

What difference does it make? The Gospels make it abundantly clear that he did die.

Couldn’t it be possible, as The All-knowing, All-hearing- All-seeing God, said in his final Revelation; “THEY KILLED HIM NOT, IT WAS MADE APPARENT UNTO THEM”?

No, not in light of the historical evidence. You should be asking what did happen not what could have happened.

When the disciples were sleeping, the traitor “Judass” came in and his face was changed to that of Jesus.

The problem is that all of our earliest sources contradict that story. They say that Jesus died by crucifixion while Judas died by other means.

I also notice that your explanation is different from Deedat’s. Deedat says Jesus survived the crucifixion but you say Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place. Why is there so much doubt and conjecture about this among Muslims when the the Quran 4:157 says those who believe in the crucifixion of Jesus are the ones in doubt and basing their opinion on conjecture? Non-Muslim historians are quite certain that Jesus died by crucifixion and they base this on historical research, not conjecture. On the other hand, Muslims can’t even agree on what happened, let alone why anyone should believe them. If the Quran is going to chide non-Muslims for their alleged doubt, how much more should it chide Muslims for their doubts and disagreements?

Just because Kings came earlier and the Quran later doesn’t mean that whatever the former says is necessarily true.

That’s correct. Absolute certainty is rarely possible. We often have to work with varying degrees of probability. However, an earlier source is in a better position to know historical facts than a later source for at least three reasons. First, the earlier source may have been written within living memory of the people and events it describes and therefore have access to witnesses. Second, if the earlier source relies on oral transmission of traditions those traditions will pass through fewer people before reaching the author and thus have fewer chances to be lost or corrupted. Third, if the earlier source relies on written records the author may have had access to written records that are lost to later generations. 1 Kings 11:41 mentions the Book of the Acts of Solomon as containing the “rest of the acts of Solomon.” This book is now lost to us but was accessible to the author and readers of Kings.

You argued that Kings is reliable because it contained information that was later supported by archaeological evidence. The same is true of the Quran. Therefore, whatever it says carries as much weight as the bible.

I also think Kings is reliable because it is our earliest detailed source of the period and because multiple other ancient writings, including non-Israelite writings, agree with it on certain points. The Koran is certainly not an early source on Solomon and it is known to contradict earlier sources.

Maybe the only historical fact the author(s) of Kings knew was that Solomon’s empire crumbled shortly after his death, leaving Israel at the mercy of its enemies once again. Not knowing the actual events leading up to his nation’s fall, the author(s) of Kings looked for information in the previous books. In earlier works, he found that the destruction of many personalities were as a result of tempestuous relationships with women. Just as Eve had caused Adam to sin, relegating humanity to this debased life thereby, so was Solomon deceived by impure women into practicing polytheism, angering God in the process and causing Him to punish his people consequently.

According to 1 Kings 11:41 the author and his readers had access to the Book of the Acts of Solomon. The author’s statement that that book contained the “rest of the acts of Solomon” implies that it had more information about Solomon than what is contained in 1 Kings 1-11. The fact that his readers also had access to the book means if he lied about Solomon he was liable to be caught in the act. This gives us another reason to doubt that the author was lying.

It is too naive to say that Solomon’s wisdom did not extend to theology, considering that it was through God, with whom he communicated in a manner inaccessible to us ordinary human beings, that he acquired extraordinary knowledge. Thus, it is inconceivable that he would become a polytheist, knowing that polytheism is false.

What evidence is there that Solomon’s wisdom did extend to theological matters? 1 Kings 3 suggests that Solomon was simply given wisdom. There is no indication that he had to consult God each and every time he wanted to make a wise choice. It is quite strange that no mention is made of his theological wisdom since you’d think that would be of more interest than his knowledge about plants and animals (1 Kings 4:32-33).

If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, much of the scriptures was written after Ezra. This would also explain why the author of Kings attributed Solomon’s downfall to foreign women since Ezra had instilled in his contemporaries and succeeding generations the idea that assimilation is the gravest sin in the sight of God.

Some books were written after Ezra but the last event mentioned in Kings (2 Kings 25:27-30) dates to about 560 BC, about 100 years before Ezra arrived in Jerusalem.

If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, much of the scriptures was written after Ezra. This would also explain why the author of Kings attributed Solomon’s downfall to foreign women since Ezra had instilled in his contemporaries and succeeding generations the idea that assimilation is the gravest sin in the sight of God.