More Immaturity and Irrelevancy from Anthony Rogers (answeringmuslims.com)

Impressing the boss with his response to this post?

Anthony Rogers begins with a flurry of abuse and chest beating in what appears to be his attempt to emulate and/or impress his mentor/senior colleague Mr Shamoun.

My advice: Anthony Rogers, calm down, you are going to do yourself a hernia. I know you are a little ticked off with this ministry as it has caught your colleagues with their pants down on more than a couple of occasions but do try and keep a sense of balance otherwise your career will funnel down the plug hole. Just ask Mr Shamoun…

Anthony selectively rambling and missing the point

Mr Rogers then rambles on about one portion of the blog post whilst generally ignoring the main thrust of it. He never bothers to tell us why Josephus never recorded Herod’s massacre in Matthew 2:16. He never defends the account in the Jewish War.

Anthony Rogers carping on

He simply bangs on about what we already covered; why scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum not to be an interpolation. What was the point in that?

We already covered this area by stating:

Other scholars, on the other hand, accept the genuineness of those accounts arguing that they contain points that cannot be reconciled with Christian tradition and they do not reflect a writer with a Christian faith but rather depict him as a doubting onlooker (Williamson, 1974: 396-397). [1]

Perhaps Mr Rogers wanted to fill out his blog post and simply appear to have something of merit and substance. Perhaps that passes for impressing the natives over at AM. I am not sure as to the reason behind his starnge decision-making; I just wish he would refrain from such a "tactic" as it benefits nobody who has the capacity to think critically.

Much to do about nothing, Anthony

Mr Rogers gives the impression the quotes used were from me (Yahya Snow). They were not. If he had bothered to look closely he will have noticed the citation. Dr Loauy Fatoohi’s book was the reference. I guess Rogers, in his zeal to impugn the tormenter of his mentors/senior colleagues, failed to notice such.

In any case, Rogers, unsurprisingly, had no genuine point against Dr Louay Fatoohi either.

Anthony Rogers gets downright absurd

This is a sad indictment on the state of Christian internet apologists. Bizarrely, our Anthony, claims it refutes the Quran?!?!?!. No kidding you, this guy went there!!!

I suppose the thought of context left his mind as he appealed to Quran 4:157. Did he ever stop to think the Jews could have appended those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm as a form of mockery or the titles are due to paraphrasing from the Author (God)? The sarcasm point is similar to the passage where Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title of “king of the Jews”.

Beneficial article and his citations of Maududi’s Tafsir:

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refuting_Answering_Deedat_1_.html

Even if Jews sincerely called Jesus by such titles it would have NO bearing upon the blog post as it simply repeats one of the reasons as to why the critics doubt the passage in Josephus was interpolated whilst travelling in a culture of dishonesty amongst the scribes. I guess this was lost on Mr Rogers.

Kicking the dead carcass further

Mr. Rogers’ bizarre line of “reasoning” in his “refuting of the Quran” based on what Jews would have said can be transferred over to the Gospel accounts as Jesus was called “King of the Jews” by folk who you would not associate such statement making.

I guess Rogers, if he was to be consistently devoid of an ability to discern context will have to celebrate his unwitting refutation of the New Testament.

Summary and advice for Anthony Rogers

-Anthony, Dr Fatoohi cited three principles as to which critics doubt the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. It was not me – stay focussed!

-Dr Fatoohi’s principles still stand – these are what critics use to argue against the validity of the passage. Despite your blogging and chest-beating these still stand.

-Josephus is a historian, thus his calling Jesus by the title of Messiah would reflect his personal belief rather than sarcasm or any other form of description which did not resonate with Josephus. In short, Josephus’ calling of Jesus as Messiah would be considered different to those appending titles to Jesus in Mark 15:16-20 and Quran 4:157. Get with the program, Anthony.

-Anthony, you failed to adequately cover the main point to the post; why did Josephus fail to mention Herod’s massacre of young boys despite chronicling Herod’s brutal history.

-You did not bother to defend the passage in the JW. Do you believe your preceding co-religionists forged this document in a similar manner as to their forging of the Gospels?

-Anthony, rather than quote mining from my posts please be a little more considered and scholarly in your approach.

-Oh, please drop the overly aggressive and immature attitude. It suits Sam as it is his wont. It does not suit you as you simply appear to be a pale imitation of your mentor/senior colleague. Think about it.

-PS May I suggest in your writings, you add the title of “peace be upon Jesus” after his name or at the end of the post to show a little extra respect. Thanks.

May God send His Peace and blessings upon Jesus and all the other Messengers of God.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens iron.

[1] Original article

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Related:

Jesus has Muslim brothers/sisters

The incarnation?

Original sin?

Learn about Islam