Refutation of Reza Aslan and Islam at the same time!

Fundamentalist Muslim Paul Bilal Williams – Thanks for posting that video! (no longer available, as Paul Williams changed his blog url.)

Roman Catholic priest Robert Barron refutes Reza Aslan – and Islam! 

Barron not only refuted Reza Aslan, but he refuted Islam as well.  Most scholars, even ones who don’t believe in God or miracles or the supernatural (like John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, and Marcus Borg)  admit that the real historical Jesus was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish leadership, under Annas and Caiaphas and the scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Sanhedrin council.  The historical fact of Jesus’ crucifixion refutes Islam, since the Qur’an denies that Jesus was crucified and killed. (Qur’an Surah 4:157)

Al Masih ( المسیح  ) died on the cross, was the fulfillment of the prophesy – “God Himself will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:8) and John the Baptizer ( یحیی – John 1:29 – “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”) – the substitutionary ransom (فدیه – Qur’an 37:107; Mark 10:45 – the Greek word for “ransom” translated into Arabic and Farsi is the same root word in the Qur’an at 37:107, speaking of when Allah substituted a ram in the place of Abraham’s son.  “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”)

“For the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”  (Mark 10:45)

and Jesus Al Masih rose from the dead (Mark 16:1-8; Matthew 28; Luke 24; John 20; 1 Corinthians 15) and proved He was the Messiah, Son of God, the Word of God from all eternity (کلمه الله – John 1:1-5; 1:14).

All the scholars that Fr. Barron names believe that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and killed by the Romans. (E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham)   Though Paul Bilal Williams likes to use certain cherry-picked quotes from Sanders and Dunn, and sometimes Bauckham in order to create doubt in the minds of Christians, his whole argument and apologetic is defeated by all the positive points that these scholars make for Jesus of Nazareth being crucified and other facts that go against Islam.

There is no really good reason to date Mark as late as 70 AD.  The only real reason that many scholars believe that is because they cannot believe in supernatural prophesy, that Jesus actually predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.  (Matthew 23:36-39; 24:1-15; Mark chapter 13)   Muslims are inconsistent to follow those kinds of scholars, since Muslims actually believe that God can speak supernaturally and can inspire prophets to predict the future.  So Muslims should stop using those anti-supernaturalistic arguments against the Bible, since the same arguments can be used against the Qur’an and Hadith and Islamic sources.

So, Mark was probably written between  45 – 60 AD, as Luke was written around 61 AD – the evidence for that is clear by the way Acts ends in Acts 28, at the end of the 2 year house arrest of Paul. That means Acts was written in 62 AD and Luke in 61 AD.  This means that Matthew and Mark were written before then probably in the 50s.

Two books (one by a liberal scholar and one by a believing scholar)  that argue cogently for early dating of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are:

Redating the New Testament, by John A. T. Robinson


Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke:  A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, by John Wenham

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Islam, Muslims, Reza Aslan. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Refutation of Reza Aslan and Islam at the same time!

  1. Ken Temple says:

    Hi Paul,
    You are a good Fundamentalist Muslim who believes in all the dogmatic doctrines of fundamental Islam – you fundamentalist you!

    Since you ban me and don’t even allow me to comment and yet the other Christians you engage are also fundamentalists in the sense of sincerely believing in fundamental doctrines and principles, it is you who are massively inconsistent.

    I am merely providing the counter evidence to you and Shabir Ally and others who constantly claim that “all scholars say “such and such” – you guys are wrong – “all scholars” don’t say what you guys claim. We are free to think and look at all of them. I have three books now of more liberal scholars from your recommendations – James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered; Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Tradition; and Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the NT. ( I am still working through them and will write more, Lord willing, as time allows.) The only real reason for rejecting an early date for Mark, Matthew, and Luke is the anti-supernatural bias against prophesy – that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in 70 AD – He spoke it a few days before the cross around 30 AD and Mark (45-60 AD)and Matthew (50-60 AD) and Luke (61 AD) wrote about it from around 45-61 AD. I read all of Raymond Brown’s reasons and there is nothing substantial there. The only reason it has traction is because it agrees with the largely anti-supernaturalistic academic secular society and media of today – the anti-supernatural bias against Jesus predicting the future – has the air of appearing intellectual and cool and smart. You exude that same pagan secular arrogance in your hatred of Christian doctrines.

    So, it is fair game fo me to provide the other side of the argument (since your Fundamentalist Islamic propoganda side, in combination with the liberals, get the greater amount of popular coverage) – some good resources against your ad nauseum repitition of statements by Dunn and Ehrman and Brown, etc.

    It is you who are inconsistent, since you believe blindly that the Qur’an is true, when it gets history wrong – 1. crucifixion and death of Jesus and 2. obviously misunderstood the doctrine of the Trintiy – thus proving the Qur’an is not God’s word at all. You are inconsistent since you are a fundamentalist Muslim who believes in all the doctrines of Islam and the restoration of the Khalifa (which would seem to include the Dhimmi principles of subjugating Christians and Jews. -Surah 9:29; Pact of Omar 1 and 2) and you use liberal scholars who come to their conclusions that you use to attack the Bible based on their anti-supernatural bias, and yet you believe in the miraculous virgin birth of Messiah, but those scholars you constantly tout reject that a priori, and that is the same worldview that causes them to date the 3 synoptic gospels later.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    I never said that you didn’t have the freedom to quote them, only that you were inconsistent to your fundamentalist Islamic worldview and to ONLY use the liberals and their worldview, when you don’t agree with their worldview against miracles and the virgin birth and supernatural revelation.

    Go on quoting them – I sincerely hope you do. Lord willing, as time allows, I will be writing stuff from those three books that I have purchased and am reading, based on your recommendations. And I hope to get more/ read more of the others you have recommended, in the future. (smile)

    At least I study and quote the other side. You are too afraid to even engage the other side. Your lack of open-mindedness is consistent with your Islamic Fundamentalist attitude and wanting to restore the Khalifa (which could then call for Jihad against the whole world- Surah 9:29).

  3. Ken Temple says:

    Sorry; I apologize, you did quote F. F. Bruce. (and Richard Bauckham and probably some others, when it suits your agenda)

    I had forgotten about that. What I mean is that you cherry pick stuff that you hope causes doubt in Christianity, but don’t admit that the usual stuff you use from Dunn, Ehrman, Sanders, Raymond Brown, – usually – are principles from them that have a anti-supernatural bias behind them as their basis, and that is inconsistent coming from a Fundamentalist Muslim who believes in Allah and miracles and Allah’s ability to speak through books and prophets, and you believe in the fundamental doctrines and the restoration of the Khalifah – which will result in harsh violence and subjugation of Christians and Jews. (Surah 9:29)

  4. Ken Temple says:

    And you put the Roman Catholic Father Barron’s video up, which was pretty good. So again, thanks for that; and that it proved both Reza Aslan and Islam as totally false.

  5. Pingback: Reza Aslan’s Historical Method | apologeticsandagape

Comments are closed.