Saturday, 15 February 2014

New Muslim Wants to Show the Gospel of John as Unreliable to his Parents

A message I received:

I am a new Muslim and going to speak to my parents about Islam. One of the things they mostly do is pick up verses from Johns Gospel (which is why they named me John) and in this video, it mentioned how Johns gospel is not reliable. Would you be able to provide a source or the document which says this?
I want to show it to my parents.

My Response:

Walaikum salam

May Allah bless you further. Ameen

Here is a short video on the Gospel of John:

Here is the email address of the British Muslim convert in that video who speaks about the Gospel of John. Please email him in order to get some advice and information on what to present to your parents in this regard:



Radical Moderate said...

This is to funny. So I was playing around with speech recognition software, and I decided to transcribe a section of a book I have been reading "Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties" and the section I was transcribing is titled, " But was priced crucified and Thursday or Friday?"

This must of been providence because what do I see in your tired old video, but this very argument. So here is the real explanation.

But was Christ crucified on Thursday or Friday? Part 1

The uniform impression conveyed by the synoptic gospel is that the crucifixion took place on Friday of holy week. If it were not for john 19:14, the point would never have come up for debate. But john 19:14 says " now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, behold, your king!" The NIV suggest a somewhat less difficult handling of the apparent discrepancy: "it was the day of preparation of Passover week, about the fixed hour." Later translation takes note of two very important matters of usage first the word παρασκευὴ (paraskeue) had already by the first century AD become a technical term for Friday, since every Friday was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In that modern Greek the word four Friday is παρασκευὴ (paraskeue).

Second in the Greek term πάσχα (pascha) literally of the Passover is taken to be equivalent to Passover week. This refers to the seven day feast of unleavened bread that immediately followed the initial slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb on the evening of a 14 day of the month of abib to, which by Hebrew reckoning would mean the commencement of the 15th day, right after sunset. The week of that maso-t coming right on the heels of Passover itself during which maso-t were actually eaten along with the lamb, bitter herbs etc. very naturally came to be known as Passover weak, extending from the 15th to the 21st of Abib, inclusively. This was followed immediately by the feast of unleavened bread on the 15th of the 21st. Popular usage of merge the two festivals and treated them as the unity as they were for practical purposes. It was unnecessary to insert a specific term for week for it to be understood. Therefore that which might be translated literally as "the preparation of the Passover" must in this context be rendered "first day of the Passover week."

Radical Moderate said...

But was Christ crucified on Thursday or Friday? Part 2

It turns out, therefore, that John affirms just as clearly as the synoptics that Christ was crucified on Friday and that his sacrificial death represented an antitypical fulfillment of the Passover ordinance itself, which was instituted by God the days of the Exodus as a means of making calvary available by afraid to the ancient people of God even before the coming of Christ

Note that in first Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is refer to as the Passover lamb for believers: "Purge of the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ our lamb was sacrificed for us." The statement E.C. Hoskins on the John of 19:14 is very appropriate here"The hour of double sacrificed is drawing near. It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and the lamb of God is likewise sentence to death. It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs refer to here are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes, the right that Jesus had already observe with his disciples the night before but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel (for the household observance of the evening of the fourteenth of ABIB Exodus 12:6; for the public sacrifice on the altar Exodus 12:16 - 17; . Leviticus 23: 4-8; 2 Chronicles 30: 15 -19; 35: 11 -16. These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.

Thus it turns out that there has been a simple misunderstanding of the phrase, παρασκευὴ (paraskeue)πάσχα (pascha) that has occasioned such perplexity that even Guthrie deduced an original error, for which he had no solution to offer. The various ingenious explanation offered by others, that Christ held his personal Passover a night earlier, knowing that he would be crucified before the evening of the 14th; that Christ and his movement held to a different calendar, reckoning the 14th to be a day earlier than the calendar of the official Jerusalem priesthood; or that he was following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran -all the theories are quite improbable and altogether unnecessary. There is no contradiction whatsoever between John and the Synoptics as to the day on which Christ died - it was Friday.

Anonymous said...

Careful RM, refuting Yahya will only get your post removed. He is not here to be refuted. Just look at all the posts he has and see that in virtually EVERY SINGLE comment section responses have been removed. This guy is deathly afraid of the Answering Muslims bloggers and the writers for Answering Islam. He won't debate. And he won't let comments stand. Sorry, but your response is going to go bye bye just like mine is.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yahya Snow said...

@RM so you believe there's no contradiction in those stories?

Do you believe there are any contradictions in the Gospel accounts?

Yahya Snow said...

RM, you do realise Mike Licona is an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST and he recognises it to be a contradiction and thus does not buy the explanation you gave above.

Bart Ehrman (world renowned NT scholar) also seems to recognise it as a contradiction thus not buying your explanation:

Critic Bart Ehrman wrote: “Maybe when Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John 19:14)—maybe that is a genuine difference,” that is, a real contradiction (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 9). This is not an uncommon claim for a Bible critic and agnostic like Bart Ehrman. But is it consistent for an evangelical New Testament scholar like Mike Licona? In a debate with Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary(Spring 2009), Licona said, “I think that John probably altered the day [of Jesus’s crucifixion] in order for a theological—to make a theological point there. But that does not mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified.” In short, John contradicts the other Gospels on which day Jesus was crucified.

RM giving an explanation is not what it's about - giving an explanation that people can honestly accept is what it's about.


Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

As for me it is like this:

1.Shabir says most scholars say the spear thrust in John never happened,it was a literary invention.

2.He has also said that if it did then yes,we could be sure Jesus died.(John says water and blood came out with the stabbing,showing a lung had been punctured,killing Jesus,if he were not already dead)

3.Shabir says that according to the Koranic Arabic when the Koran says Jesus "was not crucified" it can mean he did not die because he was crucified.He accepts the historical Jesus was crucified but survived.

About the Shroud of Turin

It could be authentic and if so it would show Jesus did die(unless one accepts the position of most Muslims that it was a look-alike)

1.Several laboratories had concluded that the Shroud was from the Middle Ages,according to Carbon dating.

2.Later the leader of the scientific group that examined the Shroud,atheist Ray Rogers(died 2005),realized years later,using experiments,that the cloth samples used by the labs had a lot of cloth from the Middle-Ages woven into them,falsifying the results.

3.He came to the conclusion it could be 2,000 years old,asked the Vatican to be able to Carbon date other parts(but was refused,and it still has been refused).

Anonymous said...

Part 2(from Minoria)

It has been proved the shroud is NOT a painting and that the Carbon dating is wrong.One still has to see how old the shroud really is.

1.In 2009 they discovered an authentic shroud near Jerusalem from the 1st century and the way the cloth is woven goes against the authenticity of the Turin shroud.

The Turin shroud is woven in a way that it is believed was not invented till the Middle Ages:

However,as I said before,the real test is to Carbon-date the shroud again.

Anonymous said...

Part 3(from Minoria)

It is that many times scholars are wrong about things:

1.The best geological analysis of the Kensington rune stone discovered in 1898 (and that says it is from the year 1362) shows it is not a fraud.The geologist who made a study of it and came to the conclusion it was not a hoax(based on geological evidence) found his ideas accepted by fellow geologists.Read:

Then we have the case of about 3,000 mummies and other bodies from Egypt and the Sudan (and thousands of years old)that have large amounts of NICOTINE and COCAINE in them.How is it possible?For the nicotine it has been speculated that maybe a tobacco plant existed in Africa before(and is now extinct) but nobody dares say the same for the coca plant.It is possible there was some contact between Africa and South America(cocaine never made it to Central America and Mexico) thousands of years ago,enough to introduce large amounts of coca leaves.

Anonymous said...

Part 4(From Minoria)

For the best information,impartial,about the evidence in favor and against,go to:

It is by BARRIE SCWORTZ,Jewish investigator,who was a member of the team that studied the shroud,led by Ray Rogers.

He is in favor of its authenticity,but also says that if the evidence turns out it is fake,then it is ok with him.He does not believe in Jesus as the Messiah,so his interest is purely academic.

Anonymous said...

Part 5:

Ok,now to the details.Let us say it is finally redated and it is about 2,000 years old.Then it would be that of Jesus.There are technical reasons:

1.The Romans,if they had a doubt,pierced the chest,to make sure the victim was dead.So?The shroud shows a spear wound in the chest(just like stated by John).

2.The shroud has an image of a real man,it is not a painting.

3.It has been shown to contain real blood.

4.The Romans NEVER permitted crucified victim in any part of the empire to be buried,they were to be eaten by vultures and dogs.However Jewish historian Josephus(1st century) says an exception was made for Jerusalem and crucifixion victims could be buried.

Anonymous said...

Part 6(from Minoria)

5.About 100,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans in 1st century Palestine.The shroud shows a man was whipped,another Roman custom.

6.In 1968 they found a bone-box(from the 1st century) in a cave near Jerusalem that had they bones of a crucified man,the nail was in his foot.That proves Josephus was right,crucified people in Jerusalem received a burial.

7.John also says Jesus' hands were pierced(and the shroud shows pierced hands).

Anonymous said...

Part 7(from Minoria)

Notice that because only crucifixion victims near Jerusalem received burial in the empire then a 2,000 year-old shroud narrows possibilities to Jerusalem.

But you can say:"It could be any man from Jerusalem".

The shroud shows the man's head was pierced by a Crown of Thorns

Barrie Schwortz has pointed this out:many of the 100,000 Jewish victims and others were whipped,some pierced but the Romans NEVER had the custom of Crowning Crucifixion men and women with a Crown of Thorns.

They did that to Jesus because he had said he was the Messiah,the expected King of the Jews.

Shabir also says Jesus was on the cross for 6 hours and you can't die in such a short time.He is wrong,the best authority on crucifixion,Dr Frederick Zugibe(20 years of study),has done experiments with scientific and mathematical measurements,and has shown that crucifixion victims could die in an hour.He has the data,so Shabir is wrong.

So if the shroud is anywhere near 2,000 years old then Shabir's position would be untenable.

Anonymous said...

Part 8(from Minoria)

Now you could say somebody stole a dead body from a cross and buried it secretly,so the shroud is NOT from Jerusalem.

Almost anything is possible but:

1.If a crucified person survived then the Roman soldiers in charge were killed.So the soldiers made sure the person was dead.

2.A soldier or more was put in charge of making sure the dead body was NOT stolen,that it would decompose on the cross.

3.If the body was stolen then the soldier in charge would be Crucified.So soldiers could NOT be bribed.

4.Proof of this is the popular story "The Widow of Ephesus".

A beautiful woman loses her husband,he is buried in a cave and she spends her time there,waiting for death.
A handsome soldier hears her,enters, and likes her.He consoles her and finally sleeps with her.But he was in charge of guarding a dead crucified body from being stolen.

While making love to the beautiful woman the body is stolen by relatives of the victim for burial.The soldier discovers it and says he will soon die.But the woman,his new lover, says no,replace the stolen body with that of my dead husband,he does and his life is saved.

Anonymous said...

Part 9(from Minoria)

Finally,there is this,from 2013:

"A new book written in Italian, Il Mistero della Sindone (The Mystery of the Shroud), by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, states that by measuring the degradation of cellulose in linen fibers from the shroud,

two separate approaches show the cloth is at least 2,000 years old.

And while Fanti’s methodology has been questioned by others, the book also states that

another series of mechanical tests, designed to measure the compressibility and breaking strength of the fibers, corroborated these findings.

According to Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli, the

three separate tests, when averaged, showed the linen fibers of the shroud to have been woven into cloth around 33 B.C., give or take 250 years, thus nicely bracketing the year 30, when most historians say Jesus died on the cross."

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yahya Snow said...

A Christian sent me this email as an explanation to what Licona sees as a problem in the Gospel account:

Yahya why can't you honestly accept this explanation.

1. Its a fact that the two Festivals of Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread, by the second temple where celebrated as one observance. So any day mentioned as Passover that fell with in the actual Passover or the 7 day feast of unleavened bread would of been referenced as Passover.

2. The Greek word used in John for Preparation Παρασκευή is the same word for Friday Παρασκευή since by the first century Friday would of been preparation day for the Sabbath.

3. John 13:1-2. When John says it was "Just before the Passover Festival". He referring to the combined Festivals of both Passover and the Feast of Unleavened bread. Jesus is eating his last supper which would of been the Passover Meal. He is now the lamb of the Passover. Offering himself as the lamb so the destroyer will "Passover" his disciples as well as future Christians, via Communion i.e the taking of bread and wine.

4. When John records that Christ was crucified on "the day of preparation of Passover" he is combining a few things. First he is combining that it is a Friday (day of preparation for the Sabbath) as well as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread.

5. Christ is crucified while the Food Offerings are being made to the Lord in the Temple. These are a Peace Offerings to God himself. Which is what Christ is a Peace Offering between man and God. (On the fifteenth day of that month theLord’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. 8 For seven days present a food offering to the Lord. Lev 23:6-8.)

What is a food offering you might ask?

"If his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering to the Lord is an animal from the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. 7 If he offers a lamb for his offering, then he shall offer it before the Lord, 8 lay his hand on the head of his offering, and kill it in front of the tent of meeting; and Aaron's sons shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar. 9 Then from the sacrifice of the peace offering he shall offer as a food offering to the Lord its fat..." Lev 3:6-9