Articles - Page 7 of 18 - Existence of God

Speaking at the Southern Evangelical Seminary’s annual National Conference on Christian Apologetics, Christian philosopher and historian Gary Habermas shared historical facts that a vast majority of scholars, including even skeptics, do not dispute — facts that are the basis for proving Jesus’ boldly resurrection.

“Of what did earliest preaching consist before there was a single New Testament book? What did the earliest Christian preaching look like before any books were written?” Habermas, a New Testament scholar, asked the audience, explaining that he would talk about what the first 20 years after Jesus’ Crucifixion looked like.

Oral testimonies are important as evidence of a historical event, he said Saturday at what’s known as America’s largest and longest-running apologetics conference. He added that studies have shown that if you have special reasons to remember special events, you’ll remember it more carefully for a longer period of time. For complete article, here

The theme/topic of the conference is the Trinity.

Date and Location
November 15-17
Grand Hyatt and Marriott Rivercenter
San Antonio, Texas

EPS Plenary Address
Wednesday, November 16, 2:00-2:50 pm, Grand Hyatt – Lone Star Ballroom
Alister McGrath, “The Rationality of Faith: How does Christianity make sense of things?”

For info/registration for the conference, here

WHAT IS THE GO CONFERENCE?
Learn to witness effectively
Every Christian’s desire is to share the incredible love of Christ with the world around them. However most Christians don’t feel equipped to effectively and lovingly share Jesus especially with those from other religious backgrounds. The Gospel Outreach Conference is designed to equip you to build bridges with the people that God has placed in your life! Imagine yourself leading someone you care about to Jesus this year! What if you had the right answers to the toughest questions that people ask about Jesus and the Bible? Here is what this conference will do for you:

Discover- the belief system of world religions and various world views
Learn- to start conversations about Jesus
Share- the gospel effectively with your friends
Make the investment – Reap the harvest!

Conference web site, here

William Lane Craig states, “Although most New Testament critics claim that the gospels were written after A.D. 70, that assertion, states Cambridge University’s John A. T. Robinson, is largely the result of scholarly laziness, the tyranny of unexamined presuppositions, and almost willful blindness on the part of the critics.” [1] It would seem that the unexamined presuppositions and assumptions are in need of examining, which is the goal of this article. I will be highlighting the robust, factual and thorough work of both William Lane Craig, and that of J. Warner Wallace in making the case for an early dating of both the Gospels and the epistles.

The following is William Lane Craig’s analysis and refutation of the assumptions which have been, and continue to be, assumed by many New Testament critics to support a late (post-AD 70) dating of the Gospels. He first begins by outlining the assumptions on which the post-A.D. 70 dating hinges:

Most critics date the writing of Mark around A.D. 70 because the Christian theology in it is quite developed and Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13) show that the event was at hand. Luke must have been written after A. D. 70 because he probably used Mark’s gospel as one of his sources and Jesus’ “predictions” of Jerusalem’s destruction look back on that event. The value of those arguments, however, hinges on certain assumptions:

(1) With regard to Mark, the first argument assumes that “the Christian theology” was not in fact Jesus’ own. To say it is “developed” assumes that it was once “primitive.” Actually the argument cuts both ways: one could argue that because Mark was written early, the theology is not” developed,” but truly characteristic of what Jesus taught.

(2) The second argument assumes that Jesus did not have divine power to predict the future as the gospels state He did. In other words, the argument assumes in advance that Jesus was merely human. But if He really was the Son of God, as the gospels state, then He could have prophesied the future.

(3) With regard to the arguments for a post-70 date for Luke, the first assumes Mark was not written before A.D. 70. But that assumption is itself founded on mere assumptions. The whole thing is like a house of cards. At face value, it makes more sense to say Mark was written before A.D. 70, for it seems unbelievable that Mark (whom critics agree was John Mark mentioned in Acts) would wait thirty to forty years to write down his gospel. Is it really plausible to think that Mark would wait decades before writing his brief gospel, which would be so valuable in sharing and leaving with newly established churches as the gospel preachers went about teaching and preaching?

(4) The second argument against an early date for Luke assumes again that Jesus did not have supernatural power to foresee the future. And really, even on a purely humanistic account of the matter, there is no reason those predictions could not have been given before A.D. 70. Prophets often predicted Jerusalem’s destruction as a sign of God’s judgment, and Jesus’ predictions may have concerned its destruction at the end of the world, not A.D. 70. As a matter of fact, Jesus’ prophecies are actually evidence that the gospels were written before A.D. 70, for Luke never casts the Romans in the role of enemies in his writings. In the predictions, Jerusalem is destroyed by her enemies. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, Luke must have written before that event. If he wrote afterwards, he could not have portrayed the Romans only as friends. Besides that, we have Josephus’s descriptions of the sacking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and many of the striking peculiarities of the city’s destruction are absent from the prophecies. But if the “prophecies” had been written after the event, then those peculiarities would surely have been included. So really the argument from Jesus’ predictions supports a pre-70 dating of the gospels.

In any case, it is very apparent that the arguments for a post-70 date of the gospels hang together on certain unproved assumptions. If one goes, they all go. No wonder Robinson can compare the current arguments for the dating of the gospels to a line of drunks reeling arm in arm down the street. (end of quotes from William Lane Craig)

Now we move on to Dr. Craig’s presentation of the evidence for a pre-70 A.D. dating of the Gospels:

Actually several lines of solid evidence point to a date for Luke-Acts before A.D. 64.

(a) There is no mention of events that happened between A.D. 60 and 70. Luke centers much attention on the events that took place in Jerusalem, but he mentions nowhere in Acts the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. That is quite significant, considering what a catastrophe the destruction of the holy city was for both Jews and Christians at that time. A second event noticeably absent is the Roman Emperor Nero’s terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome. From the Roman historian Tacitus we learn that Nero covered the Christians with tar, crucified them, and used them as torches to light up Rome at night. Others were clothed in skins of wild animals and thrown to starving dogs. It is unbelievable that Luke could gloss over that horrible persecution in silence. Still a third event not mentioned is the murder of Jesus’ brother James, who was leader of the Christians in Jerusalem at the time. Since Luke records the martyrdom of Stephen and the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee, it is unlikely that he would fail to relate the death of James, the brother of Jesus, who was much more prominent.

(b) There is no mention of the death of the apostle Paul. Paul was executed in Rome about A.D. 64, but at the end of Acts he is still alive in Rome awaiting his trial. The most plausible reason that Acts ends where it does, leaving us hanging, is that it was written before Paul finally came to trial and was executed.

(c) The subject matter of Acts deals with concerns important to Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem. For example, one of the burning issues in Acts is the relationship between Christians who had been converted from Judaism and Christians who had been converted from paganism. The problem was whether the pagan converts should be required to submit themselves to all the Jewish laws and customs in order to be Christians. That was a great difficulty for early Christianity. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it ceased to be a problem, since Jewish Christianity was all but wiped out in that disastrous event. The subject matter of the book suggests that Acts was written when that issue was still current.

d) Acts uses expressions that faded from use early in the history of Christianity. For example, Jesus is called “the Son of Man” and “the Servant of God,” titles that soon faded into obscurity. Also Christians are still referred to as “disciples” and the Jewish nation as “the people.” Sunday is called “the first day of the week,” another early expression. The most
natural explanation for the occurrence of those expressions is that Acts was written early enough to be in touch with the climate of the early days of the Christian Way.

(e) The attitude of the Romans toward Christianity is positive in Acts. The Romans never appear as enemies in Luke-Acts; they are at best friendly or at worst indifferent. Such a portrayal of the Romans would have been possible before Nero’s persecution in A.D. 64, but afterwards it would have been an obvious and cruel misrepresentation.

(f) There is no real acquaintance with Paul’s letters in the book of Acts. The author of Acts does not refer to or seem to be well acquainted with Paul’s many letters. Thus Acts must have been written before Paul’s letters became widely circulated. That favors a date as early as possible for Acts, since the later it is dated, the harder it becomes to explain why the author does not know of Paul’s letters.

These six lines of evidence combine to present a powerful case that Acts was written before A.D. 64. (This evidence is both compelling and authoritative, and as far as I know, has not been refuted convincingly by any reputable scholar.) Since Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts (Acts is a continuation of the gospel), the gospel of Luke must have been written around A. D. 57 or the very early sixties. This is a conclusion of tremendous importance, for it means the gospel of Luke was written just about the same time as Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 55). Luke therefore ought to be regarded just as historically reliable as Paul.

“But wait a minute,” someone will say. “Granted that Luke and Paul wrote about the same time, still Paul had earlier sayings and sources to go on.” But so did Luke. He specifically states that his information concerning the events of the gospel was “delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” people who saw and heard what he reports in his gospel. Luke was probably a traveling companion of Paul’s (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16) and spent time in Jerusalem, where he could gather information firsthand from those who had been with Jesus and had witnessed the resurrection appearances. Therefore, Luke’s information should be regarded as reliable as Paul’s.

But more than that: since one of the sources used by Luke in writing his gospel was probably Mark’s gospel, this means Mark was written even earlier than Luke. Robinson suggests a date of A. D. 45 for Mark. And of course, Mark’s sources then go even further back. When we remember that Jesus died in A.D. 30, we begin to see how hopeless the legend hypothesis is. According to Professor Sherwin-White, generations are required for legends to prevail over historical facts. But we are talking about less than fifteen to thirty years. Remember, we are not talking about deliberate lies; we are talking about legends. It is unreasonable to charge Luke or his sources with being liars. [2]

Former atheist, and now Christian apologist/case-maker, J. Warner Wallace [3] concurs with Dr. Craig’s early dating of the Gospels:

In 1 Corinthians 15 (written from AD 53 to 57), Paul summarized the gospel message and reinforced the fact that the apostles described the eyewitness accounts to him:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3–8)

In his letter to the Galatians (also written in the mid-50s), Paul described his interaction with these apostles (Peter and James) and said that their meeting occurred at least fourteen years prior to the writing of his letter:

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Gal. 1:15–19) Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. (Gal. 2:1)

This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within five years of the crucifixion (most scholars place Paul’s conversion from AD 33 to 36, and he visited Peter and James within three years of his conversion, according to Gal. 1:19). This is why Paul was able to tell the Corinthians that there were still “more than five hundred brethren” who could confirm the resurrection accounts (1 Cor. 15:6). That’s a gutsy claim to make in AD 53–57, when his readers could easily have accepted his challenge and called him out as a liar if the claim was untrue.[4]

Wallace continues to strengthen his claim to early dating:

We know from the introductory lines of the book of Acts that Luke’s gospel was written prior to Acts, but we must use the remaining circumstantial evidence to try to determine how much prior. The fact that Paul echoed the description of Jesus that was offered by the gospel writers is certainly consistent with the fact that he was aware of the claims of the Gospels, and his quotations from Luke’s gospel in 1 Tim. 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 reasonably confirm the early existence of Luke’s account, placing it well before AD 53-57. Paul was able to quote Luke’s gospel and refer to it as scripture because it was already written, circulating at this time and broadly accepted. Paul’s readers recognized this to be true as they read Paul’s letters.

Luke told us that he was gathering data from “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). As a result he either referred to or quoted directly from over five hundred verses that are found in either the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Matthew. It is reasonable to infer that these accounts were in existence prior to Luke’s investigation. If this is the case, Mark’s gospel would date much earlier than Luke’s, and can be sensibly placed in either the late 40s or very early 50s. This then explains some of the characteristics we see in Mark’s gospel. There appears to be a sense of urgency in the gospel, similar to the crime broadcasts that are made by responding officers, and Mark appears to be protecting key players in the account as if they were still alive at the time of his writing.

While skeptics would like to claim that the Gospels were written well after the alleged life of the apostles and much closer to the councils that affirmed them, the evidence indicates something quite different. The circumstantial evidence supports an early dating for the Gospels. The gospel writers appear in history right where we would expect them to appear if they were, in fact, eyewitnesses.[5]

Conclusion

Norman Geisler shares the following observation in regards to a number of liberal/radical scholars who have been persuaded by the evidence for a pre-70AD dating:

There is a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates, even among some liberal scholars. To illustrate this point, former liberal William F. Albright and radical critic John A.T. Robinson.

William F. Albright wrote, ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.’ (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, ‘In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)’ (‘Towards a More Conservative View,’ 3).

This scholar went so far as to affirm that the evidence from the Qumran community show that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is probably first century (‘Recent Discoveries in Palestine’). ‘Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 AD’ (From Stone Age to Christianity, 23).

…John A. T. Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one or two of the Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.[6]

While some New Testament critics may continue to hold to certain presuppositions (and unproved assumptions) which may fall into the category of ‘the tradition of the elders,’ in light of the case made above for early dating of the gospels, I would like to suggest that all New Testament scholars/critics put aside their presuppositions and take a fresh look at the evidence in this article. The case for early dating is strong, certainly stronger than a late, post-70AD dating, except for the possibility of John’s gospel. But even then, John A. T. Robinson offers a compelling case for John’s gospel being dated before or by 65AD in his book referenced above.

“While it is certainly possible that the Gospels were all written after the destruction of the temple, it is not evidentially reasonable. In fact, the primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is simply the bias against supernaturalism that leads skeptics to redate the Scriptures to some point following the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy.”[7]

References:
[1] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London:SCM, 1976, pgs. 3, 342-48
[2] William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, Wipf & Stock, 2000, pg. 102-106
[3] J. Warner Wallace-is a cold-case homicide detective, a missions leader, and a church planter. As a result of his work with cold cases, Wallace has been featured on numerous television programs including Dateline, FOX News, and Court TV. Wallace’s visual presentations in the courtroom have revolutionized how capital offense trials are presented in Los Angeles County and across the country. A vocal atheist for many years, Wallace is now an apologist for Christianity with a Master’s degree in theology and the founder of the coldcasechristianity.com apologetics web site/podcast. I highly recommend this site.
[4] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-case Christianity, David C. Cook Publishers, 2013, pg. 164-65
[5] Ibid, pg. 170-71
[6] Norman Geisler, The Dating of the New Testament, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2007, pp. 37-41
[7] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-case Christianity, David C. Cook Publishers, 2013, pg. 174

JERUSALEM FINDS VALIDATING GOSPEL OF JOHN-2nd Temple Period-Archaeological find confirms early dating of Gospel of John-article, here

How Early Do You Date the Writings of Paul and Mark?-William Lane Craig

Why We Know the New Testament Gospels Were Written Early-J. Warner Wallace

The Synoptic Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70–Testify Channel

Are the Gospels Written By Eyewitnesses?-J. Warner Wallace-One Minute Apologist

Are the Gospel Narratives Legendary or Historically Reliable?-William Lane Craig

In order to support their claim that the Qur’an is the inspired word of God, superseding all previous revelations, Muslim apologists sustain an attack upon all competing claims. For the most part their efforts are directed against their chief rival, the Bible. Their accusations fall into two broad categories: first, the text of Scripture has been changed or forged; second, doctrinal mistakes have crept into Christian teaching, such as the belief in the incarnation of Christ, the trinity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of original sin. [1] Combining both accusations and mixing them into an ‘accusational cocktail,’ Muslims, for the most part, accuse Paul of ‘hijacking’ Jesus’ original message by corrupting and changing it, so as to form his own ‘Pauline Christianity’, and thereby usurp Christ’s original message.

I contend that it would have been highly improbable (if not impossible) for Paul to have ‘hijacked’ the Christian faith as taught by Jesus Himself. I will offer two points of evidence in defense of my claim:

1. Historical veracity of Paul’s dramatic conversion as reported in the Acts of the Apostles
2. Paul’s contact, discussions and “comparing notes” with Jesus’ disciples-the original 11 eyewitnesses

1. Paul’s dramatic conversion-There is no other historically based explanation that accounts for Paul’s conversion from a devout Pharisee who was given the mandate to hunt, imprison and kill Christians (or members of The Way, as the first followers of Jesus were called), to that of the leader of Christian missions to the Gentiles. As Paul himself said, “They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’ And they glorified God because of me.”(Galatians 1:23-24 ESV)

The Acts of the Apostles, authored by Luke, offers the historical account of Paul’s conversion, and his subsequent progress in learning and understanding the message that Jesus taught. (Acts 9) We know Luke as a physician, but he was also an historian of the highest order—and with these two professions, similar to what we have today when we say someone has a “double doctorate or PhD.” we are privileged to partake of his historical expertise, trustworthiness and accuracy in recording the events of Paul’s life. Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote:

“For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record…it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth.”

In the mid-1960’s, A.N. Sherwin-White, an expert in Greco-Roman history from Oxford, wrote about Acts:

“The historical framework is exact. In terms of time and place the details are precise and correct…For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist and skeptic Sir William Ramsay wrote that,

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

We therefore find that Luke is a reliable and trustworthy historical source which establishes his account of Paul’s conversion as historically founded. There is simply no other account of Paul’s conversion which has the explanatory scope, or plausibility, than that of the clear historical account of Paul’s conversion in the Acts of the Apostles.

2. Paul’s contact, discussions and “comparing notes” with Jesus’ disciples-Paul checked and re-checked his doctrine/teaching with that of the original disciples and eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection: In his milestone historiographical work on the resurrection, Dr. Michael Licona notes that A.D. 30 is the standard dating of Jesus’ death among scholars. [2] With that said Paul’s conversion to Christianity is dated 1-2 years after Jesus’ death by scholars. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg puts Paul’s conversion at A.D. 32 – two years after Jesus’ death. [3] One of the leading scholars on the subject is Dr. Gary Habermas and he notes that scholars usually place Paul’s conversion 1-2 years after the cross and goes with A.D. 32. He states:

“… Paul’s conversion is usually placed at one or two years later, so let’s just say two – that’s 32.” [4]

In writing to the church in Galatia, Paul recounts his visit to Jerusalem where he met with Peter and James for two weeks. As one scholar stated, they probably did not spend all of their time talking about the weather. If Paul’s conversion was in 31-2 AD, then this places the first Jerusalem visit at around 34-5 AD, which probably corresponds to the stay in Jerusalem in Acts 9:26–29.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!). (Galatians 1:18-20 ESV)

Then in Galatians 2, we have a more detailed account of a second visit that took place 11 years later:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:1-10 ESV)

The eminent scholar F.F. Bruce, when speaking of the very early creed of 1 Cor. 15, argues that Paul received this creed from Peter and James in A.D. 35:

“In that list two individuals are mentioned by name as having seen the risen Christ, and two only: ‘he appeared Cephas’ and ‘he appeared to James’ (1 Corinthians 15:5, 7). It is no mere coincidence that there should be the only two apostles whom Paul claims to have seen during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion [in Gal 1:19]… It was almost certainly during these fifteen days in Jerusalem that Paul received this outline.”[5]

While some modern critics challenge the authorship of Paul’s pastoral letters, even the most skeptical scholars agree that Paul is the author of the letters written to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. These letters are dated between AD 48 and AD 60. The letter to the Romans (typically dated at AD 50) reveals something important. Paul began the letter by proclaiming that Jesus is the resurrected “Son of God.” Throughout the letter, Paul accepted the view of Jesus that the gospel eyewitnesses described in their own accounts. Just seventeen years after the resurrection, Jesus was described as divine. He is God incarnate, just as the gospel eyewitnesses described in their own accounts. In fact, Paul’s outline of Jesus’s life matches that of the Gospels. In 1 Corinthians 15 (written from AD 53 to 57), Paul summarized the gospel message and reinforced the fact that the apostles described the eyewitness accounts to him.[6]

And last, but not least, we have an endorsement of the purity of Paul’s doctrine by none other than Peter himself:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV)

These two evidences alone, affirm that Paul’s teachings, which are found in his letters/epistles, were founded on 1) his apostleship as one who had witnessed/seen the risen Christ, and 2) his close relationship and communication with the original disciples.

As I mentioned earlier, Paul’s creed in 1 Cor 15. is a very early creed about the death and resurrection of Jesus which was in circulation among the early church community shortly after the resurrection event. This creed was then passed on to Paul as he states-“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance.” (1 Cor. 15:3) While not extensive in scope, Paul’s Letters also include historical aspects of the life of Jesus, such as:

1. Jesus’ Jewish ancestry (Gal 3:16)
2. Jesus’ Davidic descent (Rom 1:3)
3. Jesus being born of a woman (Gal 4:4)
4. Jesus’ life under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4)
5. Jesus’ Brothers (1 Cor 9:5)
6. Jesus’ 12 Disciples (1 Cor 15: 7)
7. One of whom was named James (1 Cor 15: 7)
8. That some had wives (1 Cor 9: 5)
9. Paul knew Peter and James (Gal 1:18-2:16)
10. Jesus’ poverty ( 2 Cor 8:9)
11. Jesus’ humility ( Phil. 1:5-7)
12. Jesus Meekness and Gentleness (2 Cor. 10:1)
13. Abuse by Others (Rom 15:3)
14. Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7:10-11)
15. On paying wages of ministers (1 Cor 9:14)
16. On paying taxes ( Rom 13: 6-7)
17. On the duty to love one’s neighbors (Rom 13: 9)
18. On Jewish ceremonial uncleanliness ( Rom 14: 14)
19. Jesus’ titles to deity ( Rom 1: 3-4; 10:9)
20. On vigilance in view of Jesus’ second coming ( 1 Thess: 4: 15)
21. On the Lord’s Supper ( 1 Cor. 11: 23-25)
22. Jesus’ Sinless Life ( 2 Cor. 5:21)
23. Jesus’ death on a cross ( Rom 4:24; 5:8; Gal. 3:13; 1 Cor 15: 3)
24. Specifically by crucifixion ( Rom 6: 6; Gal 2:20)
25. By Jewish instigation ( 1Thess. 2:14-15)
26. Jesus’ burial (1 Cor. 15: 4)
27. Jesus’ resurrection on the “third day” (1Cor.15:4)
28. Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the apostles ( 1 Cor.15:5-8)
29. And to other eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:6); and
30. Jesus’ position at God’s right hand ( Rom 8:34)

How then does Paul’s trustworthiness, accuracy and continuity of proclaiming Jesus’ teaching/doctrine impact the Muslim claim that Paul was a ‘hijacker’ and not an apostle? As with a number of Islamic traditions, this claim is a later development in response to Muslim scholars investigation/reading of the New Testament, and in particular, Paul’s epistles, which contradicted the Qur’an. (See: Isma-“sinless prophet” tradition-a late Islamic development, here)

In his excellent article, The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship-And a Critique of Muslim Arguments, Keith Thompson builds on early Islamic tradition/hadith to prove that the apostleship of Paul was granted by early Islamic commentators, but was later changed by subsequent commentators once they were apprised of Paul’s epistles that were in contradiction to the Qur’an:

Commenting on S. 61:14 the respected Islamic commentator Al-Qurtubi (13th century-from Spain/buried in Egypt) grants the apostleship of Paul:

“It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos(?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas(?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.”[7]

Notice that this ancient Muslim tradition has Paul as a true apostle. If Muhammad and the early Muslims taught that it was a priority to view Paul as a false usurper whose teachings were to be avoided then we would not expect to find these ancient Muslim traditions which grant Paul’s reliability. If it were a clear Muslim doctrine in the 7th and 8thcenturies to reject Paul as the corrupter of Christianity then one would not expect to find comments like this from Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Ishaq. In a separate work, The Life of Muhammad, the 8th century Muslims historian Ibn Ishaq reports a tradition informing us about a popular early Muslim view about Paul:

“Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage which is Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of the Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.”[8]

Similarly the 9th century Islamic exegete and historian al-Tabari has this to say of Paul:

“Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed.”[9]

Although later generations of Muslims are quick to attack the Apostle Paul, the evidence clearly shows that there was an early strand of Islamic tradition reported by some of Islam’s greatest sources granting the reliability of the Apostle Paul.

Al-Tabari also states that Paul was martyred for his faith which further shows his credibility as well as early Islam’s support of Paul and Jesus’ Apostles:

“Abu Ja’far says: They assert that after Tiberius, Palestine and other parts of Syria were ruled by Gaius, son of Tiberius, for four years. He was succeeded by another son, Claudius, for fourteen years, following which Nero ruled for fourteen years. He slew Peter and crucified Paul head down. For four months Botlaius [Vittelius] ruled thereafter.”[10] (PLEASE SEE KEITH THOMPSON’S DOCUMENTARY FILM AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS POST FOR THE CASE FOR PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP)

What must be stressed about all of this data is that if the orthodox Muslim understanding at the time was an emphatic recognition that Paul was a usurper or corrupter, we simply would not see references like this about Paul being an Apostle or follower of Jesus. These writings demonstrate that the anti-Pauline sentiment we see from Muslims today is not based on any clear teaching of Muhammad or early Islam, it is the product of a process of development in trying to solve the problem as to why Christianity is different than Islam.[11]

Please continue to Part 2 of this series, here

References
[1] Norman L Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam-The Crescent in Light of the Cross, Baker Books, 2002, pg 213
[2] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, p. 318 Dr. Mike Licona notes that A.D. 30 is the “more standard dating.”
[3] Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, 1998, p. 35
[4] Gary. R. Habermas, David J. Baggett, Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, InterVarsity Press, 2009, p. 35
[5] F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000, pgs. 85-86
[6] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-case Christianity, 2013, pg. 164
[7] Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, 61:14
[8] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, p. 653
[9] al-Tabari, History, Volume IV, p. 123
[10]al-Tabari, History, Volume IV, p. 126
[11]Keith Thompson, The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship And a Critique of Muslim Arguments, here

Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)-David Wood

Is Paul’s Gospel at Odds with Jesus’ Teaching?–Testify

Did Paul Change the Gospel of Jesus?-Dr. Michael Brown

</p> <p>

Did Paul Invest Christianity?–Dr. Gary Habermas

Jesus and Paul: Different Gospels?-N.T. Wright

Change Conference is celebrating the 12th year of INSPIRING and EMPOWERING young people to make a difference in their world. We believe that Canadian teens and young adults can change their world and make a life long impact in their churches and communities. Brought to you by the Canadian Youth Network. For further info on the conference, here

(Timothy McGrew is one of the four contributors of the book, Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy, (Zondervan, 2016)

In my contributions to this volume, I argue for two central claims: that we can (and ought to) observe the same standards of evidence in questions about Christianity that we would (and ought to) observe in any other historical inquiry; and that if we do, we will find in the end that the public evidence for Christianity points to something fully compatible with our best philosophical reasoning.

The other contributors disagree. Oppy thinks that the public evidence points instead toward naturalism; Moser dismisses appeals the public evidence, which in his view does not yield any significant reason to believe in a God worthy of worship, in favor of a personal existential encounter; and Oliphint denies that anyone except a Christian can evaluate the evidence rightly.

Each of them is, I think, responding to something right. To Oppy I would grant that some pieces of public evidence, considered in isolation or viewed in soft focus, point toward naturalism. But our responsibility is not to jump to a conclusion on the basis of a casual glance at part of the available evidence; it is to arrive at the best conclusions we can based on a careful consideration of all of the evidence available. And that evidence is very rich, much richer than most skeptics or even most Christians commonly believe. (For complete article, here.)

Best-selling author and Muslim-turned-Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi has written a new book that highlights inconsistencies and errors within Islam, which he says opened his eyes and helped him come to the decision to abandon the religion and embrace Christianity over 11 years ago.

Qureshi released his new book No God But One: Allah or Jesus? on Tuesday with the hopes of helping believers who are on the fence between Islam and Christianity to make sense of the historical evidence, which he believes favors the truth of Christianity.

Having authored The New York Times best-seller Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus in 2014, Qureshi, the son of Pakistani immigrants who grew up as an Ahmadi Muslim, told The Christian Post this week that while his first book detailed the “heart” of his testimony, No God But One highlights the “mind” behind his decision to go against his family’s wishes and convert to Christianity.

Qureshi told CP that his conversion came about four years after one of his college friends, David Wood, challenged his Muslim faith and made strong arguments for Christianity.

“This friend, instead of just playing dead, like most Christians did, he actually tried to defend Christianity and show me the issues with Islam. It is real easy to do once you try, but no one else had,” Qureshi explained in an interview. “Because of that, I was ultimately opened to a lot of evidence I probably never would have considered.”

After studying Christianity for over three years and becoming convinced that claims in Christianity are consistent with historical facts, Qureshi then spent one year studying Islam. At the time, Qureshi said he thought that although the evidence for Christianity was strong, the evidence for Islam “must be stronger.” However, that is not what he found. For complete article, here

Is there a place for Christian apologetics in the contemporary church? Is apologetics a leftover from a previous era and no longer relevant to this postmodern world? Should we just focus on creating community and facilitating worship services where people can experience God?

While those who have what Gary Thomas calls the intellectual pathway for connecting with God may see apologetics as important, it would be nice to have some hard evidence for the value of Christian apologetics.

We now have such evidence. Complete article here

Sharing the Gospel with our Muslim neighbors and friends can be a challenge which at times seems almost insurmountable. This seeming insurmountability can take place rather quickly in the conversation when the allegation/charge of textual corruption of the Bible is brought ‘front and center’ into the conversation by our Muslim friends. If we, as Christians, are not prepared to respond, this baseless charge can bring the discussion to a grinding halt, or an impasse. The apostle Peter stated that we are to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks us for the reason of the hope that is in us,” (1 Pet. 3:15) and the defense of the veracity, truthfulness and reliability of the New Testament is central to our defense. In order to mount an effective defense (and offense) to this issue, some background as to why it is made will be helpful in understanding how to deconstruct and refute it.

In order to support their claim that the Qur’an is the inspired word of God, superseding all previous revelations, Muslims sustain an attack upon all competing claims. For the most part their efforts are directed against their chief rival, the Bible. There accusations fall into two basic categories: first, the text of Scripture has been changed or forged; second, doctrinal mistakes have crept into Christian teaching, such as the belief in the incarnation of Christ, the trinity of the Godhead, and the doctrine of original sin.

These Islamic views about the Bible are critically flawed. One evidence is the internal inconsistency within the Muslim view of Scripture itself. Another is that it is contrary to the factual evidence. There is serious tension in the Islamic rejection of the authenticity of the current New Testament. This tension can be focused by the following teaching from the Qur’an:

1. The original New Testament (“Gospel”) is a revelation of God. (Surah 5:46, 67, 69, 71)
2. Jesus was a prophet and his words should be believed by Muslims (Surah 4:171; 5:78). As the Muslim scholar Mufassir notes, “Muslims believe all prophets to be truthful and because they are commissioned in the service o humanity by Almighty God (Allah).
3. Christians were obligated to accept the New Testament of Muhammad’s day (seventh century A. D., Surah 10:94).[1]

Point #3 is of critical importance in dismantling the charge of biblical corruption. The Qur’an/Muslims claim that the Bible is “the Word of God” (Surah 2:75). They also insist that God’s words cannot be altered or changed. But, as C. G. Pfander points out, “if both these statements are correct…then it follows that the Bible has not been changed and corrupted either before or since Muhammad’s time.” Islamic teaching insists that the Bible has been corrupted, thus, the contradiction. As we begin the discussion, we need to be clear that “we do not in any way whatever rely upon the Qur’an to prove our Scriptures for us. What we are doing is quite a different thing. We are endeavouring to show Muslims that they, as believers in the Qur’an, are bound to accept what it says about the Jewish and the Christian Books.”[2]

The point that, ‘God’s words cannot be altered or changed,’ is stated repeatedly in the Qur’an. The following are some of the key ayahs (verses) confirming the claim:

Surah 10:64 states, “For them are Glad Tidings, in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: no change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Triumph.”
Surah 6:34: Rejected were the apostles before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those apostles.
Surah 2:136: Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).”
Surah 4:136: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messenger., and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
Surah 6:115—The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
Surah 18:27—And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.The Qur’an then advises Muhammad to consult the People of the Book (Jews and Christians—Ahl al-Kitab) if he is in doubt of the revelation he has received, “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.”

Having established the Qur’an’s claim that the words of God cannot be altered, we move on to the Quranic instruction to the Christians and Jews, which obligates them to accept and ‘find guidance’ in the New Testament (and Torah) that existed in Muhammad’s day. This along with Allah’s instruction to Muhammad to also consult the Gospel and Torah, as well as the Christians and Jews who believed and were given “the Books,” makes for a strong case as too the truthfulness and purity of the Gospel and Torah of Muhammad’s day.

Sura 7:156-157:”And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel THAT IS WITH THEM.
Surah 6:154-157: Then We gave Moses the Book complete as to whatever is excellent, and explaining all things in detail, and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord. And this (the Qur’an) is a Book which We have revealed, blessed: so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy: lest you should say, `The Book was sent down to two peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study;’ or lest you should say: `If the Book (Torah and Gospel) had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they.’
Surah 46:29-30: When the (reading) was finished they returned to their people as warners. They said, `O our people! we have heard a Book revealed after Moses attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands (the Torah) – guiding to the truth and to a straight path.’
Surah 2:91: When it is said to them, `Believe in what God has sent down,’ they say, `We believe in what was sent down to us (the Torah)‘: yet they reject all besides, even if it be truth attesting to (the truth of) what IS WITH THEM (the Torah)…
Surah 3:3: It is He (God) who sent down to thee the Book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) what IS between its (his) hands (the Bible), and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this as a guide to mankind.
Surah 4:162-163: But those of them (the Jews) that are grounded in knowledge, and the believers, BELIEVE in that which has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and in that which has been revealed before you… We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the prophets after him, and We sent inspiration to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David we gave the Psalms.
Surah 9:111: God has bought from the believers their selves and their wealth, and for them is the garden (of Paradise) if they fight in the ways of God: and whether they kill or are killed, the promise of God IS true in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an, and who is more faithful to his promise than God?
Surah 20:133: They (the Meccans) say, `Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?’ What! Has not a clear sign come to them in what IS in the former pages (al-suhuf al-aulla )?”
(According to Baidawi’s commentary on this verse – The “former pages” refers to “the Torah and the Gospel and all the divine books.”)
Surah 10:94: If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you…
Surah 16:43-44: And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don’t know.
Surah 17:101: To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel…

Dr. William Campbell notes:

According to Baidawi, Jelaleddin, and Yusuf Ali, “ask those of our apostles whom we sent before thee” means enquire of their people – those learned in their writings and doctrines. Therefore those writings and doctrines were clearly available in Muhammad’s time.[3]

The reading of “the Book from before thee,” is in reference to the Taurat (Torah) given to the Jews—“But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?– therein is the (plain) command of Allah…” (Surah 5:43)

Sura 53:36: “Nay is he not acquainted with what IS IN THE BOOKS OF MOSES.”
Sura 5:46: “But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which IS the command of God.”

The following is an authoritative hadith that confirms that the Old Testament/Torah/Taurat that we have today was in existence and in use during the time of Muhammad, and as such, the ‘revelation’ given to Muhammad which we now have in the Qur’an:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi’ (No. 4431).” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434)

In Surah 5, the Christians, “people of the Gospel,” are told to judge by what had been revealed therein:

Surah 5:46-48; 68, 69:

46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee…
68. Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord…”
69. Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

These ayahs were quoted by Muhammad during the time period of 609 to 632AD, and as such, they were referring to the exact same New and Old Testaments that we possess today. (Almost all Muslim scholars argue that the original Old Testament was distorted/corrupted. However, like the New Testament, the ancient Dead Sea Manuscripts of the Old Testament reveal that the Old Testament today is substantially the same as the one in the time of Christ, over 600 years before Muhammad.) Therefore, since the Qur’an urges the Jews in Muhammad’s day to accept God’s revelation in the Law (10:94), and since the Jewish OT is substantially the same today as it was in Muhammad’s day, the Qur’an is not referring to scripture that Jews and Christians possessed in the past, but now are lost. Rather, the Torah given to Moses, and the New Testament/Gospels concerning Jesus, is the scripture that is with them (the Christians and Jews) and in their possession at the time of Muhammad. This is historically verified by copies such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both dated to the 4th century AD, as well as Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century AD. Each of these which contains both the Old and New Testaments, and includes the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts as we have them in our present day Bibles. These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments that we have in our hands today.

After reading the Quranic passages above, we must then put forth the following propositions to our Muslim friends for response:

If God couldn’t protect His scripture, then He is inept and not all powerful.
If He wouldn’t protect it, He is immoral and/or a liar, because He promised to protect it and didn’t.

This brings us to the following conclusion:

1) The Qur’an says the words of God cannot be
changed or corrupted. (Surah 6:34; 10:64)
2) The Qur’an says the Bible is the Word of God. (Surah 3:3-4)
3) Therefore, on the Qur’an’s authority, the Bible
could not have been changed or corrupted, as
many Muslims claim, and is therefore, the Word of God.

When I hear the charge of textual corruption being leveled against the Bible (both the Old & New Testament), I simply ask my Muslim friend the following question: “If the Bible has been corrupted, please show me where, when, how, and by whom?” This is usually sufficient to cause a long pause, after which they simply restate the charge without any proof to offer. Most Muslims have been taught this response by their Imam’s and leaders along with the traditions passed down to them via the hadiths, and thereby accept this claim on ‘blind faith’ with no argument/facts to substantiate the claim. As Muslim scholar and apologist Ahmed Deedat explains, “…the Muslim believes this authoritative statement as the veritable Word of God. And as such, he asks no questions, and he demands no proof. He says, “There are the words of my lord: I believe, and I affirm.”

One response I have used on occasion is, “If the Bible is true, then the Qur’an is false. If the Bible is false, then the Qur’an is still false, because it says that the Bible is true.” (A comparison of Surah 4:157-denial of the crucifixion-with the Gospels’ eyewitness crucifixion accounts [along with extra-biblical sources] proves the point of contradiction) This usually places my Muslim counterpart square in the middle of a dilemma of contradiction that has no solution. (See video below) By ‘leveraging’ the Qur’an’s ‘truth claims,’ 1) God’s words cannot be altered or changed, and 2) the Bible [of Muhammad’s day] was/is the Word of God, the Qur’an’s internal inconsistency is exposed and the charge of biblical textual corruption is soundly refuted. The Muslim is soon brought to a crossroads of decision–either the charge is true, which cannot be proven by the Qur’an, or it is false, which can be proven by the Qur’an–there is no middle road.

As H. W. Stanton states:

It remains one of the outstanding anomalies of history that the religious genius of Arabia (Muhammad), who staked the truth of his message on the witness of previous Scriptures, should have utterly neglected to verify their contents and should have successfully inspired his followers through the ages to a like neglect.[4]

It is interesting to note that Ibn Ishaq, the author of what is considered the authoritative biography of the life of Muhammad, quotes the Gospel of John as the very same gospel given to Jesus:

“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without a cause’ (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt. (Ishaq, Life Of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, pp. 103-104)

The preceding Gospel citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. Ibn Ishaq NEVER ONCE HINTS THAT THIS PARTICULAR GOSPEL IS INAUTHENTIC OR CORRUPT.

In the first four centuries after Muhammad (600 – 1000 AD) no Muslim theologian seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic. They might accuse Christians of giving a wrong interpretation to the words; they would not dispute the words themselves. As studies of Muslim apologetics have shown it was only with Ibn-Khazem who died at Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification was born. Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing the names of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this article. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation of biblical corruption introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas’udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), ‘Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111). Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur’an itself (Sura 3:72,78) to prove that the text of the Bible was not falsified.

Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a religious and social reformer of modem times, accepted the findings of modern science. He said:

“…the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious…We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel.”—Muhammad‘Abduh, Egyptian Islamic scholar,1849-1905

References:
[1] Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam-The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, Baker Books, 2002, pgs. 213, 217
[2] C. G. Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq, Balance of Truth, Indo-Asiatic Publishers, 1910
[3] William Campbell, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History, Science, Middle East Resources 1992, p. 39
[4] H. W. Stanton, The Teachings of the Qur’an, New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1969
[5] Hans Wijngaards, Can we trust the Gospels?, A letter to my Muslim brothers, 1985, found, here

For a comprehensive overview of the topic, please see:

The Quranic Witness to Biblical Authority/The Quran on the Authority and Integrity of the Biblical Text, Part 2/The Quran on Biblical Authority Revisited, Part 3-by Sam Shamoun, here

The Mizanu’l Haqq, Balance of Truth-by C. G. Pfander and W. St. Clair Tisdall, here

Other resources found at this site:

Historicity of the Crucifixion & the Law of Non-contradiction-by Lane, here

The question: Why was Jesus crucified? ‘What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?’-Matt. 22:42-by Lane, here

The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma

A Quranic Case for Biblical Preservation–Islam Critiqued

The Bible is Corrupted: Another Later Muslim Development–Islam Critiqued

Is The Bible Corrupted? – Jay Smith